I have driven value from Rupert's clear way of guiding and love his poetic and free soul. However, what I don't understand is this endless metaphysical dance with terminology and concepts that seem utterly devoid of the purpose of liberation: to shed illusions and, by that, reduce suffering. Yes, I too enjoy these wordplays, but I see that they are increasingly taking center stage, at least from where I am looking. The danger of this is deluding and intellectualizing a direct path to realization. In fact, one is already free if not entangled in the conceptual mind.
It's crystal clear pointing that actually bypasses conceptual mind and points to direct experience of pure consciousness with no objects. See what happens when you listen to the words like you listen to music--with all of yourself, including with the body. Deep listening, allowing.
I think these concepts and intellectual guidelines are for most people necessary in the beginning, a crutch for someone who has always lived in the mind. But Rupert Spira often warns against the trap of being satisfied with an intellectual understanding and emphasizes the importance of one's own experience: "Don't trust my words!"
@@ВсадникАпокалипсиса-я9е He said at the end: "....that's what meditation is - falling 'asleep' while being awake". This is difficult to grasp in words; our own experience will clarify.
I don’t agree. When you are deeply asleep you have no awareness of your body, your breathing or the world. In meditation you are aware of everything going on, your breathing. The 2 experiences are markedly different
@@sallyarterton2702 it's because in meditation your prefrontal cortex (so called abstract mind, analyzer ) and default mode network still work together. When we fall in deep sleep, the default mode network is being switched off. Deep sleep has no qualias in comparison to being awake or in REM sleep. I think Rupert means, that in deep sleep consciousness does not dissappear, but it has no qualia in it. It's a drastically different point of view on what our consciousness is. We believe that consciousness = qualia, but he says that it's not only qualia. That sounds doubtful, but interesting idea nevertheless. At first we have to mark, when qualia begins to work. All we have is a set of qualias (hearing, seeing, sensing, thinking etc)
Some clarification on Nisaragadatta's teachings on Turia teeta, The Absolute, ParaBrahman would be useful here. Also his reference to " I am not the I AM but I Am that by which I know I AM". Also Ramana's mention of "Jagrat Sushupti " ( wakeful sleep). These terms seem to indicate something prior to Awareness
Nisargadatta, to me, seems on another level, not based on my limited understanding, but based on my intuition. He said that ultimately even the I AM dissolves in the Absolute. Maybe it is only semantics. I wonder how useful it is to even talk about something that can't be talked about?
Did you sleep well? ( or not well) last night? You will answer one way or another. Yes or no. If “ awareness “ disappears in deep sleep, who or what knows the answer to this question about the quality of your nights sleep? Ponder this 🙏
Yes. What was that person hoping to get from that question? Any amount of explanation could not deliver a direct experience that could satisfy. I think Rupert is trying too hard. The finger eclipses the moon it's pointing to, and becomes another distraction.
He got the answer but it was not what he was expecting. Rupert says awareness is primary. But there is something behind awareness, where you are not even aware that you are; the vast NOTHINGness. Many sages say this Nothingness is primary.
As much as I respect Rupert's work, I think he's missing the point in this case. Let me expand with a slightly modified quote: "We'd like to say something about nothing. And the thing that we'd like to say is that nothing is still something. We have discussed the idea of the difference between what we call All That Is, and what we have referred to as The One. Now it's all in a sense God if you want to use that term, but The One as we have discussed is a homogeneous, unbroken existence that has no awareness of itself, has no experience of itself. When it has been discussed either in metaphysics or in science that everything came from nothing, it's not really about the idea of non-existence. That's very different than nothing and that's why we said nothing is still something. But it is an undifferentiated state that has no awareness of self and no experience and it is that nothing that we're talking about. No experience, no thing, no awareness because there is no reflection. Without a reflection there is no awareness - because in order for you to know something, there has to be a distinction. Otherwise if it's totally unbroken, there is nothing to reflect back to you that you exist. So The One has no awareness of its existence. It is simply the pure state of existence itself. But within The One there is an aspect that does know itself, that does experience reflection - and that is consciousness." To put it shortly: consciousness has a quality/property common to all conscious things: reflectiveness, whereas pure being doesn't have any inherent quality and is completely undefined and 'unexperiencable'. Consciousness happens in being and requires being, but being doesn't require consciousness to be.
Well, not too fast. You said: "... is a homogeneous, unbroken existence that has no awareness of itself, has no experience of itself." And then also said: "But within The One there is an aspect that does know itself, that does experience reflection - and that is consciousness." Talking about an absolutely ineffable and absolutely transdencent (and yet fully immanent) so-called 'aspect' like it's some sort of a typical discernable human quality... When, How, and Why that aspect acts, or behaves or expresses itself? When, How, Why? If The One stands beyond the time/space continuum, then even having 'aspect' would also be meaningless. And The One by definition must stands beyond and prior to spatio temporal manifestation realms. It'd be very anthropocentric, and even (innocently I must say, no offence) out of arrogance to even begin describing or, even attempt to analytically via language explain 'that' which stands beyond language to begin with. In other words, the very source, or origin of the 'knowing' itself cannot be known; logic 101. Now, if that, which is said to be homogenous, unbroken existence has no let's say gnosis/wisdom (to differentiate it from 'knowing'/'understanding') prior to what we'd call 'awareness', then logically speaking, 'awareness' itself cannot simply pop out of that which stands before awareness! Again, we need to tread lightly here as in such deep waters we need to avoid any form of anthropocentric thinking patterns and mental construction, otherwise we'd entrap ourselves into even more delusional constructions. The absolute reality is simply ineffable to put into language, period. I guess if I have to use words to even attempt to get close to a proper description (which is impossible), it'd be through meaningful paradoxes. The One of Plotinus, or the Parabrahman stands beyond language, beyond being, beyond non-being, and even beyond awareness; but that DOES NOT mean that the very ineffable and absolute origin of all itself lacks anything. It simply transcends awareness in kind, and yet its nature profoundly expresses outward (and inward) some sort of ineffable manifestation that is even beyond awareness of any kind. If we cannot reach, or experience that, it doesn't mean that there is no reality to it.
@@joajoajb A lot of prejudices, and a lot of unfounded assumptions that are out of place without even understanding what I meant in my comment. Honestly has nothing to do with what I tried to describe as a logical problem with what the OG said in her/his comment, non whatsoever. I can get technical if needed, and get into why for example Plotinus avoids defining, or describing his crucial idea/concept of 'The One' in his Enneads. There are reason why we have the profound practice of Neti Neti in Vedanta that goes back to the very early Upanishads... I can go on and on and bring about more examples as to why it is absolutely important to not confuse our limited, narrow minded and incredibly canonical and anthropocentric point of view, with 'that' which stands beyond language, experience, awareness, and even being and non-being whichever you prefer to define them. I guess Shankaracharya and Plotinus were dishonest with themselves after all! You said: "old wise sayings, " You cannot know what You are, You can only Be what You are without knowing ". " The Absolute doesn't Know that It Is"...etc." And I must you don't even seem to fully understand what you yourself quoted here. Did you even read what I said in my post regarding 'knowing'? I don't like to quote myself, but just for the reference I said: " the very source, or origin of the 'knowing' itself cannot be known; logic 101. " which simply is the same thing. There is no doubt that the absolute ultimate reality ineffable and profoundly IS all and none. I Am That, period. However, that has nothing to do with indicating the logical errors in people's mind when it comes to articulating the matter in language, which is the only medium with which we can communicate in this comment section, isn't it? In all seriousness, is that really difficult to wrap your head, and comprehend the fact, that no 'negative' or 'positive' concepts, no notions such as 'incapability' or 'capability', no characteristics, qualities, quantities or patterns, none whatsoever can be applied to 'that' which stands beyond language, beyond thought, beyond mind, and even beyond 'isness'? When one says (in the original comment) The One doesn't know itself, this is to be taken in the sense of what he has in superabundance and not as a defect. In other words, standing beyond 'knowing' itself and prior to it, (weather I as an ego/personality I can experience that or not) doesn't mean a so-called incapability or a defect, it simply means 'that' which is the very origin of 'knowing' and 'being' is of such an ineffable, and transcendent nature that cannot be even realised by 'knowing', or by even 'isness'. The sweet nectar of such understanding is that, at the very same time, WE ARE THAT which is absolutely transcendent, and yet immanent in all. I Am That, and yet neither Am, or That, or even eventually 'I' has no ultimate reality to them. Ineffably profound silence is the answer.
@@konnektlive you explain it very well. How can you explain that which is ineffable. It’s really that simple. You can even say: I AM, that’s enough. I always am, in every waking, conscious, unconscious etc state, they are used as labels in language as language is highly fragmenting that which just is. Same thing for some is difficult to comprehend about beings. There are infinite beings within an infinite void/the endless. How can you comprehend a being like let’s say an angel or demon or spirit, or god of some kind, some beings vibrate or express themselves in such form that human mind can’t comprehend, like you can’t hear fluttering wings of a butterfly, or only a bat can hear an insect flying in the night sky through echo location, some folks are very sensitive like a tunnuing fork that can pick those vibrations up, but generally they are labelled insane 😂. But basically ineffable can express itself in human and every other possible and impossible to imagine form and shape and being. It’s a being within one and only being/void/endless/observer/god/ insert any other name that helps you to label it. Why also in entertainment the stories with unknown aspects are so thrilling. You can’t know the unknown with language or logic, it’s a perfect element to a great story. As your mind keeps wandering, what the hell just happened. And the answers ideal are infinite. As is our true nature. It is ineffable, beyond words. You can experience it all the time though. I wonder if when we dream, are we just dreaming of other forms that take shape within the ineffable infinity? A great explanation there. And it is good to question. Blind following is a dangerous thing. Don’t just take my words, examine them, if they serve everything with love, they are right words, if they discriminate against the whole, they’re othering perhaps there’s something to inspect. Wonderful explanation 🩵
I hope this helps to understand. Someone explained this to me & I got it in a flash. Deep sleep is NOT the absence of awareness/consciousness, it is the absence of objects, or the content of thoughts. No thought, no images, no emotions. However when we wake up we recall that we were in deep sleep. "hey I slept like a log, don't remember anything!" What is that which remembers you slept like a log? THAT which remembers the deep sleep experience is the knowing consciousness that is always present and always ON! it never shuts off. Even when the body dies. We are Brahman. 🙏
I don't see that the awareness remembers. It is aware of the memories stored in the thoughts/mind/brain, but that's not the same as the awareness remembering. Also, it does not experience the illusion of time, so there can't be any such thing as memory.
@@Kube_Dog Yes this is a good point & I am not claiming any great knowledge. However this is my understanding from long study. There is a correlation or a shared partnership between the biological brain activity, like neurons firing, and consciousness. Keeping in mind that consciousness is not produced by the brain, but interacts with it or somehow the biological brain works like a receiver of consciousness, an antenna if you like, or a filter. It's all quite mysterious, but there is solid scientific understanding of these principles. Google Bernardo Kastrup and investigate his videos. I have been deeply interested in this stuff for a long time and I learned not to come to any conclusions or beliefs, but just to try and understand. Thank you for your comment. Mark
Could just be a quick unconscious inference made by the awareness as soon as you start to wake up, which later becomes a kind of false memory of being aware of deep sleep.
@@karanvasudeva5424 Yes, I've also thought of this possibility and honestly I have to say I don't know. However like Rupert explains, something is still there and functioning that allows us to experience this void. So to me it seems to line up with the experience. Quite mysterious. Thank you.
Consciousness or Awareness is a dualistic concept. It implies a knowers and a known ( the known is PHENOMENA in waking and dreaming, ABSENCE in deep sleep, and ultimately AWARENESS itself as an object). Beyond duality is that which is prior to consciousness but it cannot be communicated because it does and doesn't exist, which excludes even the concept of consciousness.
Endless space, or consciousness, has always existed. The objects within endless space, including the finite universe, are objects within consciousness. A person, an object, is born into already existing consciousness. A person dies, the body as an object, leaves consciousness, but infinite consciousness still exists.
God is the Absolute Ultimate, the First and the Last, the Forever Existing. I don't know much about your nonsensical endless space thing. Endless space is not consciousness. Consciousness is God. Nor do I know why these western masters keep replacing consciousness and awareness with God. It's God. The Actual God. Say it as it is. Say God. Say, it is God. I'm so insanely beyond all these western baby boys, including every single youtuber on this channel, every single one with no exception, it's literally hurting my brain, I put that on my mother and everything.
I feel you. The sense of spaciousness feels like it is always there but there is something behind it. If you go deep into meditation, you will lose sense of not only your being but also the spaciousness. This field is vast nothingness, it cannot be described, it can only be felt during meditation.
Unless I am misunderstanding Rupert here, he seems to be saying that deep sleep is the highest or most fundamental state of consciousnese. As far as I know, most of Indian philosophy would not agree with that view at all. Traditionally speaking, the Vedic view as per the upanishads say there are broadly speaking 4 main states of consciousness.. 1 Waking state 2 Dreaming state 3 Deep sleep state 4 Self illuminating Awareness or "turiya" ("the forth") The 3rd state called "deep sleep" is not a state of awareness (as Rupert seems to say here) but is one of "unawareness" in which only the causal or karmic level of mind is operative. Its basically a blank or dark state of ignorance where only the most subtle instinctual level of mind is still working. If that 3rd level were no longer to function then a person would basically die when they entered deep sleep because nothing of them would be carried on through the sleep state. The purest and most fundamental state of consciousness is not 1,2 or 3 (above) but is the fourth state of turiya - pure formless awareness which is radiantly self aware.
True. Turya is called awareness and beyond this awareness is vast nothingness where you do not even know that you are. This state is known as Turyatita.
I think this classic confusion arises at the very threshold of a breakthrough. The roots of this is habitual identification with the "Feeling of Knowing", which ultimately is a feeling and therefore gives rise to a tug of war, so to speak, between the mind trying to identify with it as opposed to the question not even arising because of knowing.
Jesús gave the best criteria to decide who is a real teacher: “Wherefore by their fruits yet shall know them” The “fruits” of Rupert’s teachings are thousand of people who have found peace, solace and happiness by the love and compassion that emanate from his words. But there will always be people that will rather eat bitter or rotten fruits, that is the world.
The main question is " Can consciousness even be aware of itself or it's surroundings without thoughts???" Isn't it the thoughts which really makes consciousness conscious and without them nothing actually is??? Respond if someone can provide some impulse ❤
@@schoolofinnerstanding2739 oh yes this analogy makes perfect sense I would still BE, but I feel like I would not be as I'm now with this whole content, I would simply be being without any sense of myself that I have right now that's why it feels to me like I wouldn't BE in the absence of content which gives me the sense of ME, the someone!
Sí, si aquesta Cosa té la capacitat de ser diversa sense ser dos, llavors pot aparèixer en un lloc on aquest lloc es la Cosa mateixa d'una manera diversa i a través de canvis constants pot construir una agrupació de conciencia - cos - per el qual pot arribar a reconèixer-se@@schoolofinnerstanding2739
What about going under anesthesia? Where you close your eyes and then just wake up. You don’t dream. And the time passes by like hours but to you as the person going under you felt like you just closed your eyes and opened it back up instantly. There was no awareness of time. Is that deep sleep? If it is, I wonder if I have never went into deep sleep because I am aware of dreaming. Yes the time is a bit different like I can be sleeping for 8 hrs but I feel like I’ve only slept for less. However it isn’t as instant as going under anesthesia. Can someone help answer?
Title: "Exploring the Precedence of Consciousness: Delving into Existence Itself" **Introduction:** The inquiry into the existence of something preceding consciousness delves into the fundamental nature of reality and the essence of being. This exploration transcends conventional understanding, inviting a profound investigation into the origins of awareness. **Key Points:** 1. **The Primacy of Knowing:** - All experiences are grounded in knowing or recognition, suggesting an inherent aspect of awareness within existence itself. - Recognition extends even to the acknowledgment of the absence of consciousness during deep sleep, indicating a foundational knowing that underlies all states of awareness. 2. **Existence Prior to Awareness:** - The discussion unfolds with the proposition that something may exist prior to awareness. If awareness arises from something, then that underlying existence must precede awareness. - However, attempting to conceptualize this pre-awareness state is inherently challenging, as knowing itself emerges from awareness. Thus, any attempt to grasp what exists prior to awareness is inherently limited. 3. **Challenging Materialism:** - Materialism posits that awareness emerges from a prior material reality. This perspective is critiqued by questioning how matter could be known prior to the emergence of awareness. - The discussion challenges the validity of postulating something prior to awareness, urging a closer examination of the evidence provided by direct experience. 4. **Reinterpreting Deep Sleep:** - Deep sleep is recontextualized as a state where awareness persists without being cognizant of specific phenomena. Rather than an absence of awareness, deep sleep is portrayed as a state where awareness shines in its purest form, unencumbered by mental constructs. - This reevaluation challenges the common assumption that deep sleep signifies the absence of awareness, suggesting instead that it represents a return to the fundamental state of being. 5. **Reality Beyond Perception:** - A paradigm shift is proposed, positioning deep sleep as the primary condition of reality. From this vantage point, the waking state is perceived as a veiled interpretation of reality, colored by sensory input and conceptual frameworks. - Reality is depicted as the unadulterated expression of pure being, transcending the limitations imposed by perception and conceptualization. **Conclusion:** The exploration into the existence of something prior to consciousness traverses philosophical, metaphysical, and experiential realms. By questioning conventional assumptions and reinterpreting deep sleep as a state of pristine awareness, the discourse prompts a reevaluation of the nature of reality itself. Ultimately, the inquiry invites individuals to engage in introspective exploration and meditation, transcending conceptual limitations to touch the essence of consciousness beyond the confines of subject-object relationships.
There is an unyielding pang of despondency within beingness. The inability to be stabilised in beingness. We know of an intelligence, it’s potentiality to refract, modulate, illuminate into multiplicity and diversity of innumerable things because of an overflowing of LOVE. The limited human vessel is a downstream product of it. It can only trace back to being an entity that is Conscious through visceral and dream experiences because of its inherent limitation. According to Barbara Marciniak, the author of bringers of dawn, the handicap or inability to go into our true depth is because our DNA, it’s 12 strands double helix was clipped and reduced to 2 by our ancestors for the purpose of control. I think the yearning, the impulse comes from our indignation, the indignity to be limited, reduced and in servitude to the hierarchical order not of our doing. Essentially a feeling that we are more than just human cattles to be exploited and weighed down. The dissatisfaction comes from there for these spiritual quest, to yearn liberation from psychosomatic bondage.
Title: "Exploring the Nature of Consciousness: Is There Something Prior to Awareness?" In this thought-provoking discussion, the speaker delves into the depths of consciousness, questioning whether there exists something prior to awareness itself. The dialogue unfolds with an exploration of the fundamental nature of knowing and the implications it carries for our understanding of reality. **Key Points:** 1. **The Nature of Knowing:** - The conversation starts with the assertion that everything ultimately resolves into recognition or knowing. Even the recognition of the absence of consciousness during deep sleep is itself a form of knowing. - The speaker posits that there exists an underlying knowing, which is inherent to all experience. This knowing is suggested to be the foundation upon which awareness emerges. 2. **Prior to Awareness:** - The dialogue then delves into the concept of something existing prior to awareness. If awareness arises from something, then that something must precede awareness. - It is proposed that this pre-awareness state cannot be known because knowing itself arises from awareness. Therefore, attempting to conceptualize what exists prior to awareness is futile. - The speaker critiques materialism, the belief that awareness emerges from a prior material reality. This perspective is challenged by questioning how matter could be known prior to the emergence of awareness. 3. **The Nature of Deep Sleep:** - Deep sleep is reinterpreted as a state where awareness persists without being aware of anything. Rather than the absence of awareness, it is portrayed as a state where awareness shines in its purest form, unobscured by thoughts, sensations, or perceptions. - The conventional view of deep sleep as the absence of awareness is challenged, suggesting that it stems from the presumption that awareness is a product of the body or mind. 4. **Reality Beyond Perception:** - A shift in perspective is proposed, viewing deep sleep as the primary condition of reality. From this standpoint, the waking state is seen as a veiled perception of reality, colored by thoughts, sensations, and perceptions. - Reality is depicted as the shining of pure being, unbounded and infinite. The limitations of perception in the waking state hinder a clear understanding of this fundamental reality. 5. **The Experience of Being:** - The dialogue concludes with an invitation to explore the pure experience of being through meditation. This practice is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, allowing one to touch the essence of consciousness beyond the constraints of subject-object relationships. **Supporting Details:** - The conversation navigates through various layers of understanding, questioning the assumptions underlying our perception of reality. - Analogies such as deep sleep as the shining of awareness and meditation as falling asleep while awake aid in elucidating complex concepts. - The critique of materialism highlights the limitations of viewing consciousness as an emergent property of matter, challenging conventional scientific paradigms. - Through introspective inquiry, the speaker encourages a direct exploration of consciousness, transcending conceptual frameworks and embracing the immediacy of experience. **Conclusion:** In probing the nature of consciousness and its relationship to reality, the discussion challenges conventional notions and invites a deeper exploration of our fundamental experience. By questioning the existence of something prior to awareness and reinterpreting deep sleep as a state of pure being, the dialogue opens avenues for contemplation and meditation to uncover the essence of consciousness beyond conceptual limitations.
How do we make sense of all this after examining tens of thousands of Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? It seems that reality intensifies during these moments, with heightened clarity and the emergence of new, unimaginable worlds as the brain approaches death. Awareness appears to strengthen, yet so do the sensory experiences-sight, sound, smells-escalate dramatically as the brain shuts down. This presents a paradox we struggle to explain. It appears that our waking state, governed by a typical healthy brain, acts as a robust filter for reality, shielding us from experiences beyond the ordinary 3-4 dimensional world of space-time and matter. In contrast, during the dream state, we encounter bizarre, distorted worlds and experiences (in my case), while in deep sleep, we have no recollection of any experience. However, in the dying state, experiences seem to intensify, and those who undergo such experiences often describe it as the most profound state to be in. Thus, the deep sleep state or meditation without content may not truly represent a normal state of being; perhaps it is a state to recognize one's true nature, akin to divinity itself. Anecdotal evidence suggests that after death, experiences expand infinitely, with endless possibilities of encountering new worlds and different versions of oneself.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." There is no knowing without knowledge so the can't be awareness without something to be aware of.
The Unmanifest ( Absolute, Nirguna Brahman, the Essence of Divinity, the Father...) is prior to manifestation ( awareness , being, saguna Brahman, the Son, Creation...). This is understood by masters like Nisgardatta, Ibn Arabi, Master Eckhart, Shankara... And it is possible to recognize the unmanifest experiencially ( or in a non-experience). How could this be possible? That I can't say, I think it is impossible to explain.
@joajoajb correct me if I'm wrong. In meditation, we strive to take awareness as far as possible in order to get the sense of this vast nothingness, absolute, parabramhan right? Because naturally, there is no experiencer nor there is any experience beyond awareness.
Deep sleep is still something known...we can relate it as the absence of all phenomena; but there is something which encompasses this play of absence /presence and which is beyond and prior all of that...and that susbtance is what is called Parabrahman in the hindu tradition...it is the absence of the absence,which knows the coming and going of awareness;so awareness is not the ultimate,the origin...there is clearly something which is prior to the capacity of being aware in deep sleep...that is called the absolute,Parabrahman,the stateless state ,or the absolute dreamer...
Didn't Nisargadatta describe it as beyond consciousness and unconsciousness? I find it confusing if mind, consciousness and awareness are all used interchangeably by Rupert. It took me bloody five or six years to get my head around reading Nisargadatta and finally settled with it. That is the biggest difference between Nisargadatta and Rupert so far for me.
If knowing never rises and falls then why foes it feel different when I meditate and goo into deep sleep consciously compared to when I am asleep, where I do not know anything?
Isn't easier to say we have no memories from deep sleep, that doesn't mean we don't exist for those time periods but we have not memory to refer too afterwards. same as in concussions people have gaps in their memory.
If he says he was not aware while sleeping , if he was aware then he is not sleeping . When he was sleeping aware of deep sleep. Sleeping means realization can happen only after wake up , that guy question is funny but he is still a seeker or learner its fine to take his question.
Aatmiya BRAHMAN Be Blessed HARE KRSNA CONSCIOUSNESS is Not Awareness. Awareness is because of CONSCIOUSNESS. Objects of Experience & Information are appearing in Consciousness creating awareness about them. Very Respectfully 🙏 Loving 💜 One & all Conscious/Consciousness fellow feelers, thinkers, practitioners.
In my opinion, a question was asked in a completely different way than it was answered. Rupert led the man to "ask" the wrong question by asking him back questions too early. The underlying fundamental of knowing can exist, but it's unlikely that one exists. But... If we imagine that we live in a computer simulation, then our science can only measure one bit of data. But you can't reach the code behind that, the code that is responsible for generating the data, the bits that we perceive. And that code is knowing, it can do practically everything, it is not bound by concepts, there is no limit to it etc. The problem is that even that code is built on top of something and that something in the computer world is computer hardware and electricity. I think that the question was about that and this question has nothing to do with the materialistic question.
This is a really fantastic about a question that addresses something that's extremely difficult to clarify! So, I'll take a chance. Awareness and perception are not the same. Awareness is Pure Cognizance and entirely "prior to" perception [Existence existing within Awareness; "out there" existing merely as a function of perception]. Perception is what Awareness is being "cognizant of" (i.e., Subject/object). Perception is not "cognizance", nor is perception "cognizant". Rather, perception is a bio-mechanical functioning of sensation [of material "information"], which translates as "experience" - all a function of the mind-body organism, that "sensation" simultaneously including intellect and conditioning/experience, which is an unwitting and entirely reactionary "amalgamate" of the ever changing, temporal and reactionary (non spontaneous) individual identity of the separately appearing mind-body organism (itself also temporary) - the entire process being the problem "standing in the way of" actual personal Cognizance/Awareness/Reality. Awareness is actually "impersonal" and constantly is, while perception is "personal" and intermittently exists only while waking/dreaming. Perception doesn't exist in deep sleep, yet Awareness exists as a constant - during deep sleep [and during everything and anything else]. Without Awareness, the mind-body organism and its perception/intellect/conditioning (i.e., "experience") would not/could not exist. Awareness is "I Am" from which everything flows. Perception/intellect/conditioning/experience tends very heavily to thwart and work against that flow. Hard to say and probably clear as mud and, after this comment, that's probably my name too (apologies in advance). Again, this is a fantastic video from Rupert Spira!
It is late and I probably mess it up but I am compelled to answer so I just follow that. I like it but I feel it is missing one step. There is perception agreed, but there is also getting conscious of perception. We perceive all the time, but are not always conscious of it. Perception is knowing - level one. And when we get conscious of it - we know that we know - level two. And all of this happens in awareness that is as you described. That's how I understood Nisargadatta who talks about mind, consciousness and awareness. What do you think?
@@MarkusMutscheller Hey there, Markus! ✨🌈👋🥴👍✨ We're saying practically the very same thing with different words. Your use of the phrase "getting conscious" is my use of the words "awareness" and "cognizance". Assumed word meanings constantly cause people to misunderstand and that creates real problems. One of the very major difficulties is that there are no words in the English language for some of the things from spiritual philosphy in India. It's difficult to reconcile that because, in our ignorance, we assign all kinds of mistaken meaning and go with it.
@@Da_Xman Had the same thought last night. I just imagined a really talented and eager Indian soccer player, working his way up in an Indian soccer club with the best Indian soccer coaches available. Eventually, he goes to Germany or Brazil, thinking he understands soccer and realizes there is another whole level of depth there, based on 100 years of world-class soccer-playing culture that you simply can't find in India. When it comes to spirituality, Advaita Vedanta, it is the opposite. Not only that, but the difference is much bigger. We talking about thousands of years of millions of people seriously contemplating these matters. We hardly have reached Kindergarten understanding in the West. This is very apparent when you compare the meetings of Rupert with Nisargadatta. The level of the questioners and their understanding is so much higher. This is reflected in the depths of the questions they are asking and the answers he gives. I can follow Rupert quite easily. But I have read I AM THAT about eight times over the past eight years, a paragraph at a time, deeply contemplating about it, and I feel I still only understand about 10 to 20% of what he says. Saying this, I woke up this morning with the thought - why the need to understand anything? I wonder if it is a detour because all mystics say, the Absolute is right there, It is not in the future. Understanding is linked to a process in time with a result at the end. That's not what mystics refer to, I believe. Food for thought - you see - here I go again - we can't help ourselves - the urge to understand is overwhelming. I wonder if the last realization is the realization that there is nothing to understand. The Absolute is the unknown and it is infinite. Understanding is the process of knowing more. It is a function of biology and survival. Understaning things better, animal behaviour, human behaviour, nature behaviour - all of it improves survival. Therefore, evolution selects for it. No wonder we are a bunch of extremely brainy people compared to animals and nature. No wonder we have so much control and power over them. But this is fueled by the fear of death, the drive to survive. Enlightenment is transcending the fear of death - all fears are gone, the mystics report. So, to conclude, I don't think we can ever get to enlightenment by understanding. It has to be a total surrender to the unknown which will probably feel like death - another clue given by mystics. If that is true, why did the non-dual teaching survive? It has to have a purpose otherwise humanity would have ditched it. And I wonder if the purpose is to try the path of understanding to the end, only to realize, that understanding won't work. I wonder if it is the same with the devotional belief-based path - faith. The first one is the rational path, faith is the irrational path - just two sides of the same coin - which could be called "doing something". Thinking or believing requires a doer. But a doer is based on the illusion of a separate entity - therefore, thinking and doing are strengthening the Ego. Only letting go of both will also let go of the Ego. But even "letting go" can be turned into an ego activity. So doing nothing, forgetting everything, melting into the current moment and residing in it might be all that is needed.
I am is pointing 👉 out sense of I . Awareness do not point out I am. which is the mind which is realized pointed out to awareness as I am. In other words awareness takes or need mind support to pointed 👉 out to itself I am
Through my personal deep meditation practice, I could say that the sense "I am" is just behind person, observing all the activity of body and mind. Just behind "I am" is just "I", the awareness, or spaciousness. And behind that is vast nothingness, which cannot be named and this is what sages call absolute
2:19 Materialism is the belief that there is something out of which awareness arises, some matter prior to awareness out of which awareness arises which then knows this stuff called matter. 8:25 In deep sleep reality shines in its purest form. In the waking state reality is colored by thoughts, feelings,sensations, perceptions and is thus limited.
Title: "Exploring the Depths of Consciousness: Is There a Preceding State?" **Introduction:** - The discussion revolves around the nature of consciousness and whether there exists a state preceding it. - Key points include the concept of awareness arising from something prior to itself. **Recognition and Knowing:** - All experiences ultimately resolve into recognition and knowing. - Deep sleep is recognized as a state devoid of awareness. - Raises the question: What exists prior to consciousness? **Prior to Awareness:** - If there is something prior to awareness, it suggests awareness arises from it. - Postulating something prior to awareness is akin to materialism. - Materialists believe in a substance (e.g., matter) from which awareness emerges. **Challenges of Identifying Prior to Awareness:** - Prior to awareness, nothing can be known because awareness has not yet arisen. - The concept of something prior to awareness remains speculative. - Deep sleep is often presumed to be the absence of awareness, but this assumption is questioned. **The Nature of Deep Sleep:** - Deep sleep is reexamined as a state of pure awareness, uncolored by thoughts or perceptions. - It challenges the notion that the waking state provides the clearest view of reality. - Deep sleep is posited as the most accurate state of perceiving reality. **Reality and Perception:** - Reality is viewed as shining in its purest form in deep sleep. - Thoughts, images, sensations, and perceptions in the waking state limit our perception of reality. - The waking state is characterized as a filtered view of reality. **Experience of Being:** - The discussion shifts to the experience of pure being. - Meditation is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, tapping into the pure experience of being. **Conclusion:** - The exploration delves into the depths of consciousness and the nature of reality. - It challenges conventional views of consciousness and invites contemplation on the nature of awareness. **Supporting Details:** - The conversation explores the limitations of perception in different states of consciousness. - Deep sleep is reinterpreted as a state of pure awareness rather than the absence of it. - Materialist perspectives on consciousness are contrasted with alternative viewpoints. - The experience of being is highlighted as a key focus of meditation and introspection. This summary encapsulates the main points and supporting details of the conversation on consciousness and its preceding state.
When we sleep WITH DREAMS we are witnessing the abcense of awareness. When we wake up we become aware of not being aware prior to awareness.. So the usual sleep with dreams is prior to awareness(consciousness). When we sleep without dreams we are not aware of not being aware. So dreams are opposite to awareness.
Title: "Exploring the Depths: Is There a Preceding Realm to Consciousness?" **Introduction:** - The discussion revolves around the nature of consciousness and whether there exists something prior to it. - The dialogue starts with the idea that everything eventually resolves into recognition and knowing, including the acknowledgment of nothingness in deep sleep. - It introduces the concept of an underlying knowing that precedes awareness or consciousness. **Key Points:** 1. **Nature of Knowing:** - Knowing is described as something that arises and falls, similar to the objects of awareness. - However, the question arises: does the act of knowing itself rise and fall? If so, what does it rise and fall in? 2. **Existence Prior to Awareness:** - The discussion posits the existence of something prior to awareness, suggesting that awareness arises from this prior existence. - This prior existence is contemplated as a state where awareness has not yet arisen, making it impossible to know anything about it because knowing itself arises from awareness. 3. **Materialism vs. Direct Experience:** - Materialism is criticized for postulating that there is something prior to awareness (e.g., matter) from which awareness arises. - Direct experience is emphasized as the primary source of understanding, questioning the need to imagine something beyond what is directly experienced. 4. **Interpretation of Deep Sleep:** - Deep sleep is traditionally viewed as the absence of awareness, but this perspective is challenged. - Instead, deep sleep is reframed as the primary condition of simply being aware, without the addition of thoughts, images, sensations, or perceptions. 5. **Reality and Perception:** - The waking state is presented as a state furthest removed from reality, where reality is veiled by thoughts, images, sensations, and perceptions. - Deep sleep, in contrast, is depicted as a state where reality shines in its purest form, unadulterated by mental constructs. 6. **Understanding Deep Sleep:** - The difficulty in understanding deep sleep is attributed to the presumption that the waking state provides the most accurate view of reality. - A shift in perspective is proposed, considering deep sleep as the state where reality is most accurately perceived. 7. **Pure Experience of Being:** - The dialogue concludes with an invitation to explore the pure experience of being, devoid of subject-object relationships. - Meditation is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, hinting at a state of awareness beyond conceptual understanding. **Supporting Details:** - The conversation unfolds through a series of questions and reflections, allowing for a thorough exploration of each point. - Examples, such as the experience of deep sleep and the process of meditation, are used to illustrate the concepts discussed. - Critiques of materialism and conventional interpretations of consciousness provide additional context for the arguments presented. **Conclusion:** - The exploration into the realm preceding consciousness challenges traditional perspectives and invites a deeper inquiry into the nature of reality and awareness. - By reframing concepts such as deep sleep and the waking state, the dialogue encourages a shift in perspective towards a more direct and experiential understanding of consciousness.
Once you marry your experience of 'self-enquiry meditation' (focussing on the feeling felt as 'I' - prior to language) with the electrical interpretation of 'Non-destructive implosive charge-compression' as shown by Dan Winter (youtube) - things will never be seen the same again. Its all about pure and universal principle (exclusively negentropic, electrically defining; Life, metabolism, immunity, perception (inc colour) and what it is to be electrically centripetal or subjectively grounded) - learning to abstract and to sustain a sense felt point of focus that is non-verbal - to allow the implosion of charge at the Planck threshold in order to access and embed in the larger array (which, on the contrary, is the 'collective UNCONCIOUS' or 'ancestral memory' i.e. the shareable wave)
Mmmmm, I have some doubt about it. You say that the experience of being aware is present in this deep sleep but as this gentleman explained, you only recall and remember the experience once you are awake, so it could mean that the experience of being aware is only recalled while awake. The key here is recalling (remembering). So it means that you need to be awake in the waking stare to know that you were aware in deep sleep. This doesn’t mean in itself that you were aware during the deep sleep, it could also just be some memory that the brain creates. Because during deep sleep itself, there is no experience. You cannot experience an absence of experience, it would be an oxymoron, even nothing is not nothing, if it was really nothing, you wouldn’t be there to either remember or experience it…[[1
@@maya0182if they shout in your ear yes, but otherwise I don’t think so. Do you think someone in a coma would wake up if they heard their name ? I don’t think they would… you would wake up from the dream state perhaps but deep sleep state I am not sure
Not really, it cannot be verified that you are aware during deep sleep. The man explained well. You can only know there was deep sleep once you wake up in the morning. But during deep sleep itself, how can you know that you were aware ? You don’t! Unless someone slaps you on the face. So deep sleep in a sense is also the absence of awareness. If you say no, then prove it. How can you remember being aware of nothing ? You don’t! It would be like saying that you are aware during anestisia.. you are not…
When you say "unless someone slaps you on the face" there is this assumption that awareness means being aware of something - some perception, some sensation, some feeling, some thought, etc. So your point here is not about being unable to verify that you are aware during deep sleep, but that there can be no awareness without there being something to be aware of. Is that correct? If that's the actual point, then how do we know that we have a perception, a sensation, a feeling, a thought, etc, and that those are distinct from each other? How do we know that something is a thing? If I look out of the window and I see a car parked, how do I know there is an autonomous object there, as if it is independent of my perception of it? When I see the hood of the car from the point where I am looking from, I know it's facing a perpendicular direction and so I can imagine standing in front of it and facing the hood. Similar with the other side of the car which is invisible from my point of view. So, what is a thing to us? It's the center around which one can move to take different viewpoints. But can one actually see the totality of the thing from any viewpoint? So, we are not aware of things outside of awareness but of potential movements of the observer in awareness. In our dealing with those things we place the thing abstractly outside of awareness as if it really exists out there as an object. But as soon as we investigate what the thing is in and of itself, we only get perspectives, which never exhaust the thing. The center of the thing stands for all the potential perspectives in which it can appear to us, including those perspectives from very up-close where the thing wouldn't look at all like a car, and from very far away where it would appear like a landscape with an invisible car in a certain direction. Similarly we could investigate body and mind. So, that leaves with awareness itself as the great unknown. If everything is ultimately centered movement in awareness, how does one verify at all that one is aware? One cannot do so. If we think we do, we are just looking at an aspect of awareness like perception, sensation, feeling, thinking, etc. But they do not exhaust awareness. From those centered movements in awareness, awareness cannot be known as it is to itself. Only awareness can know itself as it is. So, the whole point of doing this investigation is to discover that awareness is independent of there being discernable things as centered movement or not. We could say that awareness is the potential for all things to be, hence being prior to things. Are we (still) together at this point?
@@filip5 I think we are I will try to explain again my point, my point is not to say that there could not be awareness without being aware of something, but that you wouldn’t be able to know if there was awareness without being aware of anything, so we cannot be certain and make the assumption of awareness being the source of matter, because if there was only awareness without any object even without the nothing you wouldn’t be able to remember because there wouldn’t be an experience … nothing is still an object, what you remember is not awareness it is the nothing that you are aware of… it’s the memory created by the Brain You do know that the world is there around you because other people can confirm it too, it’s pretty obvious that if we visit the Eiffel Tower we will both be able to say that the Eiffel Tower is there and touch it, the assumption that the world wouldn’t exist without awareness is just a theory which cannot be proved… I know it’s the favourite thing in non duality but it doesn’t make it more scientific
@@ecoutetonetre729 Well, as I explained, we cannot even know that we are aware now, in the presence of objects. If we think we know we are aware, we just infer that we must be aware since there are objects. What I tried to explain is that awareness is always awareness whether in the presence of objects or not. I pointed to an experiential investigation to establish that fact. Are you with me there? What you say is that there could be two kinds of awareness'es, one in the presence of objects and one without objects, the latter we cannot know since we can only know about awareness through the objects that we are aware of. And indeed from that perspective, the nothing we are aware of, must be a (brain-fabricated) memory. The issue is that even our sense of distance or duration is a (subtle) thing in awareness. We experience our 4D world (3D space + 1D time) because we know we can move around in that world. We have built up that experience from childhood. People who always lived in an environment with little space, will interpret far away objects simply as close but small objects. So, from that implicit framework of interpreting reality we extrapolate deep sleep as still happening in the 4D world, albeit unaware of that being so, though others can report afterwards seeing "us" while in deep sleep. Note that there is the assumption again that we are the body. While the body, like any object, is organized perception (and sensation), i.e. movement of observation around a center of attention. Like I can imagine moving over to the front of the car and see the hood in full, I can also imagine that someone else in that position is seeing the hood in full. And afterwards that person can report to me what they saw and it will be consistent with what I expected them to see. So, what is in fact theory and assumption? That there must be world, a body, a brain, a mind outside of awareness, that we are aware of and that has the awareness? And the common factor of that which is outside of awareness is matter? We overlook the fact that the notion of an object is just our mental focus on the center of attention of the thing we observe. All this does not change when we use instruments to aid our observation, like microscopes and telescopes. Matter is just a label for those observations which we cannot make without the aid of instrumentation, as bodily senses are not able to penetrate the fine structure of things, as they are also not able to encompass the solar system we are in without satellites taking pictures from afar. What does all of this have in common? Awareness. Awareness is the mystery, not matter. We are trying to understand awareness. But we cannot, as awareness is not a thing, not an object. In our desire to understand our reality we imagine that matter is something outside of awareness that we can understand (better and better). Also, this is not a solipsist stance, where the universe only exists when it is observed. It is just the way we observe is limited (and distorted) according to our viewpoint or perspective. There is obviously universal order, but it is intrinsic in awareness itself. That's all we can know anyhow. Not "my" awareness vs "your" awareness, as that assumes again that matter produces awareness, but awareness "tout court".
The issue is, that we usually do not remember deep sleep, since Usually wake up during dream sleep. But if you do wake up experiments, people will remember a feeling of existence during deep sleep.
@@filip5the problem is that you are trying to understand something which is beyond the mind with the mind and thus it create a lot of confusion in your mind. I agree that awareness doesn’t need objects to be, my point was that you wouldn’t be able to experience it without object in other words it doesn’t matter if the world actually exists or not, live your life totally and completely, that’s enlightenment, not some philosophical understanding. When one is beyond the mind one can see the truth, but if you try to get it with your mind it will turn ugly. You might be right that awareness exists during sleep you might not, nobody can know for sure and it actually doesn’t matter much, on the other hand being free from the sense of separation and doing your best in this life is much more important than trying to grasp at some philosophical answers with the mind.
For Rupert’s assertion that Consciousness is the fundamental Reality to prevail, he must have you take the first person subjective view that is done in meditation. How does he justify having us take that view? He makes an argument to persuade you to take that view of the matter. But by giving reasons why we should adopt a subjective approach (as opposed to the “objective” materialist approach) he will have to give reasons and arguments for his view. That will inevitably trigger the usual counterarguments. But we know from the long history of debate in Western and Eastern metaphysics that argumentation will not end in a conclusion we will all agree upon. Rupert is left, in practice, with having to just assume we should choose the subjective, first person view, and choose to do the practices he recommends to know Reality in the way he says it is. The scientific-materialist approach that concludes that consciousness arises from matter has as much justification for being adopted as the first person subjective approach that Rupert prefers. Since one can’t conclusively justify which approach to take using argumentation, we have to choose which perspective/method we choose without having a conclusive reason for doing so. So I contend that we should choose which approach we use - subjective/meditational or objective/scientific - depending on the problem we are trying to solve.
Ponder the outcome of these two opposite worldview. How ? Testing it. Then, if you like the results of this experiment, throw away all metaphysical model which were only thorn used to remove the thorn of materialistic paradigm. When you are left with no thorns at all, what remains ? Peace.
@@calvinrakotobe5583 You’re offering the pragmatic approach: Asking what works? But Rupert is not only saying his subjective-Consciousness approach works, he contends that it is The Truth, Reality, the way things are. That’s a much bigger claim that I contend he does not demonstrate, although he makes it sound like he has. In general, spiritual teachers are often tempted to use the rhetoric of knowing Reality to unjustifiably justify the superiority of the approach that they are teaching.
@@jefriv Since we have all lived our life assuming that awareness is limited and temporary, it's legitimate, as a remedy to this deep unexamined belief, to propose an alternative model of the Universe in which we don't make any assumption which is not founded upon our experience : the Consciousness-only model. If the materialistic leap of faith that there is a world out there made out of matter (in other words, what I am, awareness, is limited) were not made, there will be no point in proposing the Consciousness-only model. But then Rupert invites us to test it out this new possibility that consciousness is universal in our lives (he is not imposing anything on us really), because after all, this model is much more in line with our experience, namely that the only stuff ever experienced is awareness. Having testing out the materialistic model for years (you know the results of that experience I think), I decided to live the implication of the experiential recognition that what I truly am is not finite and temporary (which only what thoughts think about me, awareness). So now I'm living my relative life as if I, awareness, am universal and I have found that I feel more connected with other people, and our planet I feel more love and intimacy. I also experience a deep peace and a quiet confidence. All my relationships seems to slowly reharmonize themselves. Have you tried this other possibility my friend ? If yes, what are the results in your life. That's what Rupert has taught me and I'm eternally grateful for that : just follow my experience all the way.
@@calvinrakotobe5583 Right. I’ve agreed that the approach Rupert teaches can be beneficial to some. (He’s an excellent teacher.) That’s the pragmatic point we agree upon. I was opposing a different claim; the problematic claim of having metaphysical certainty of objective reality due to the use of that practice.
@@jefriv Most people in the West follow (talk about, investigate, contemplate and devote their life) the objective aspect of their experience all the way to the point they manufacture an image of themselves, and belie)ve it to be absolutely true. The great religious and spiritual traditions invite us to look and examine closely the subjective aspect of our experience, that is the very self (named "I" or the experiencer) which is investigating (aware of) objects (the experienced). It is discovered to be an illusion, and its unchanging reality is... [No words can describe it]. That's why we have artist like Rupert who tries to evoke in us, through its poetical used of the english language, That in us which is changeless, untouched, unharmed, seamless, immaculate. In this regard, lots of people use negative words like I've used in the sentence before in order to draw attention to what Reality is not, paving the way to the experiential recognition of Reality as it is. That's the moment Rupert comes in : he articulates a model of Reality as I've never seen before (the Consciousness-only model) which is really just a mind portal to Reality, like self-enquiry questions are mind portal to Reality or love and beauty are feelings and perceptions portal to Reality. Don't forget that the Consciousness-only model is only a mental map which can help us, by means of contemplation, to go to Reality. In my case, I don't care that this model cannot be proved or is scientifically inaccurate. I only use this model to evoke in others the absolute truth of their experience. We should remain silent if we want to speak accurately about Reality. Or we should just go to That which is indicate by the sages throughout the centuries and find for ourself if it's true. "The scientific-materialist approach that concludes that consciousness arises from matter has as much justification for being adopted as the first person subjective approach that Rupert prefers. Since one can’t conclusively justify which approach to take using argumentation, we have to choose which perspective/method we choose without having a conclusive reason for doing so. So I contend that we should choose which approach we use - subjective/meditational or objective/scientific - depending on the problem we are trying to solve. The problem here is suffering. So we should just choose the subjective approach to Reality. Why ? Because it leads us to peace, the placeless place where the apparent subject of experience, and its associated object of experience, are dissolved, leaving only That. The objective scientific approach leaves us for ever in the delusion that we are an object IN the world, denying unconsciously the true Subject of experience (Awareness). Have you tried the subjective approach Jeff ? If yes, what is the results of your investigation ? I advice all my friends to follow the subjective all the way, because in my experience, peace and harmony are making themselves known in my human life thanks to this choice. The objective approach has only leads me to temporary happiness thanks to recognition by peers or acceptation by the social group or the next good meal. It wasn't enough for me so I change the direction of my attention away from the objects perceived to the Perceiver (that's the true meaning of the word "conversion" in the Christian tradition btw). I'm so happy to have make this choice two years ago; I encourage you to at least give it a change if you haven't. Also, if you approach what Rupert says with your mind, you will have an enormous amount of objections. Why ? Because your mind has subconsciously believed and subscribed to the materialistic narrative of Reality (the objective approach) for the entirety of its life. And that''s where Rupert also comes in because he answers all these objections and allows us to go beyond them. In the materialistic model of reality, the sense of identity is derived exclusively from ideas, models, mental images, friends, activities, sports, book read, particular skills - objects. Hence, when another approach is proposed as Rupert do, the mind feels that its very existence is threatened since it derived all its identity from these objects (ideas and models in this case). The consciousness-only model invites us to discover our very own self as it is, prior to ideas. Here we find true certainty. The mind is born again, transfigured, and now in service of that absolute certainty. Peace is found.
There may become an economy of Meaning, yes, because anyone who has experience with synchronicity in nature, universal, or God, knows that AI cannot perceive that like humans. So AI entities will compete for human "workforce or content creators" who do create meaning. So when we say that AI cannot create stories infinitely like humans it is correct to believe that the perception of infinity is what makes the difference; and the difference is subtle. It seems like we can't get the conversation started in the media between leaders and citizens without Buddhism/nonduality because in Buddhism it's possible to attain widespread agreement about the objective truth of this "subtlety" from our immediate experience without any further written evidence which is going to cut through cultural and social barriers and get this conversation moving. Democracy is a conversation between citizens and leadership that happens with the help of the media and it's currently stalled, so if Buddhism is able to get us moving while we are on the eve of humanity's greatest challenge, then we need to remember this every time Democracy stalls. After some deliberation I decided that it is the job of philosophers to secularize these aspects of each religion and cultural experience so that citizens can unify this experience of subtlety in the conversation in the media.
So knowledge is an illusion and awereness is also an illusion. So the question "What is knowlege rising and falling in?" is wrong. An illusion isn't IN something.
Consciousness and matter re interrelated ,how can one be aware of colours without eyes(matter) ... Without eyes consciousness will get reduced to touch and odour... Awareness of reality is observing own thoughts and sensations as a third person without considering the thoughts as itself... This state can be explained by a void ego/observer without sensation and thoughts so it has no survival instinct or desire to experience something but just a blank observer...
In materialisms it’s actually not the eyes that see the colors, it is the brains. The eyes are stimulated by waves(light) and that information is processed and finally the brains create color. Yes, according to materialisms the brains are in fact God because they have creative power. Obviously this can’t be true because the brains are physical matter which itself needs to be perceived. Big loop-error there completely ignored by science in general.
Eyes and brain, waves are all physical... Even consciousness is a result of particles or molecules and the processes that form the brain and conciousness.... It does not mean any of these re God...
must have missed something - how can you possibly "know" that deep sleep is a state of "pure awareness"? (with no content in awareness) Also, I disagree with Rupert's notion that "deep sleep" is the closest state to reality, whereas dreaming and waking states are progressively more distorted. The content of awareness in dreams or in the waking state is as much "reality" as his purported (unknowable...) state of pure awareness with no content in deep sleep. The "distortions" that do arise amidst awareness' content are a result of our psycho/emotional/physical reactions to and identification with this content, and belief that "what we are" is or is not "it". The content of awareness itself is just as "real" as anything else, including the undifferentiated void. I do like Rupert's final suggestion: "go now to the state of 'pure being'" and when the participant says he was there, Rupert responds: "you were just deeply asleep". That is a nice instruction.
@@HopyHop1 I don't know. My point is: I don't see how you (or I, or anyone, including Rupert Spira...) could ever know the answer to your question. To "know" the answer, you would need to retain a memory of the experience of deep sleep, which, assuming Rupert's assertion of it being a state of pure awareness without content, is an impossibility: there would be no "experience" to be recorded by your subconscious to be recalled and reported later by the conscious "you". The only response to this challenge I can imagine might be: "well, I'm an enlightened being, and you'll just have to trust me on this...", which I would disregard (and laugh at -- not because I could dispute it, but because an enlightened being would never say such a thing...)
@@wattshumphrey8422 I don't know if I'm interpreting what Spira is talking about correctly, but it seems like he suggests that the experience of awareness being aware of itself only without time and space is deep sleep. In other words, it's possible to experience deep sleep without exhibiting to a 2nd person's perspective a body lying in bed with closed eyes. I think that Rupert says we are always in deep sleep. The analogy he uses is that the screen is always there even if absorption in the events of what is playing on the screen takes place. From what I understand of his model, deep sleep is primary from which the dream state is built upon and the waking state is a further building upon and refining of the dream state. So, we could say the screen (pure awareness) is primary upon which comic book stories take place which don't have clear physical causal relationships (dream state), which is sometimes further refined to sharp causal relationships (waking state). I believe Rupert addresses your qualm with using the notion of "self remembering" as Ouspensky put it. How can something that's always there be remembered? I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, but I find them quite important. Knowing what one is seems to be the most important thing that can be known if it is possible. Surely, one's idea of what one's self is will alter one's actions, priorities, fears, and values.
@@HopyHop1 I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying. Forgive me -- I should say firstly that I'm not a fan of Rupert's teachings -- to me seems like many a word salad composed of a lot of intellectual symbols, and I'm always left absent any sense of his "knowing" (feeling instinctively) of what he speaks. And, I have a little voice telling me that if Rupert did have such "knowing" he would not have wordy discussions with people in his sessions, and would engage only to stop their intellectualizing and steer them back to the path of their own experience. Or, absent an ability to do that, he would be silent Accordingly, I can't do justice to a debate on what he might mean by all this.
@@wattshumphrey8422 I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying either. "like many a word salad composed of a lot of intellectual symbols" I don't really know what you mean by this. Perhaps if you gave an example your thoughts would become clearer to me. "I have a little voice telling me that if Rupert did have such 'knowing' he would not have wordy discussions ..." It's not clear to me what you mean by "knowing". What is this "knowing" that you believe Rupert pretends to have without really having. Knowing of what? Again, I'm afraid I'm not following what you're trying to express. "I can't do justice to a debate on what he might mean by all this." Agreed, at this point a debate seems pointless.
@@joajoajb كيف فهمت هذا من تعاليم روبرت ؟؟ تعاليم روبرت هي ان الخير والشر والإله والشيطان نفس الشيئ😂 حالات وعي محدوده لها صفات تنبع من الوعي اللامحدود عديم الصفات،الإزدواجيه حالات وعي ناتجه من الوعي الغير مزدوج
@@joajoajb "What was the state of your existence, before life occurred?" This question presumes that time is real. What if there is no time, and what seems to be time is a mind's way of organizing thoughts that can only take place now? Your question also presumes that you know all about this era of "before life occurred". If you "give honesty a chance" as you say, you'd have to admit that you know nothing of this "before life occurred" era other than just so stories. Take care!
@@joajoajb In other words, if you give honesty a chance, you'd have to admit to yourself that your thoughts about this "before life occurred" era are taking place now and can only take place now. If you give honesty a chance you'd have to admit that any thoughts about any past or future event are really only thoughts that are in your mind now.
One usually is aware of the passage of time upon awakening from sleep. But that doesn't occur under anesthesia. You're out one minute, and back at the same minute it seems. So using sleep as proof of awareness being continuous is not valid
Nisargatta Maharaj's brings this concept of the absolute and it is prior to the Awareness but there's no such thing as the so called absolute and this absolute is nothing but deep sleep or samadhi and it is an object because it is never remain always present and you're aware of it and therefore you about it and saying about it. Not knowing yourself is a state or vritti in sanskrit and it is deep sleep which is appear and disappear in Awareness. So don't try to go beyond the Awareness and you can't.
Rupert is always very clear that the explanation gets in the way of truth and that if you want the absolute truth, it’s taught through sitting in silence. As a teacher he recognises the need to satisfy the intellectual investigation to support surrender to the truth. In my mind, he is one of the greatest teachers.
To end the war you have to understand the atheist logical fallacy. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To understand you have to read until the end or until you understand. To understand Spinoza's God is the true God and you have been deceived you have to understand from nothing can not be created something. Thank you.
That's brilliantly explained.
I am never asleep, only the content is gone, but the screen is still present.
I hope so. There has to be something that's real about us.
I have driven value from Rupert's clear way of guiding and love his poetic and free soul.
However, what I don't understand is this endless metaphysical dance with terminology and concepts that seem utterly devoid of the purpose of liberation: to shed illusions and, by that, reduce suffering. Yes, I too enjoy these wordplays, but I see that they are increasingly taking center stage, at least from where I am looking. The danger of this is deluding and intellectualizing a direct path to realization. In fact, one is already free if not entangled in the conceptual mind.
It's crystal clear pointing that actually bypasses conceptual mind and points to direct experience of pure consciousness with no objects. See what happens when you listen to the words like you listen to music--with all of yourself, including with the body. Deep listening, allowing.
I think these concepts and intellectual guidelines are for most people necessary in the beginning, a crutch for someone who has always lived in the mind. But Rupert Spira often warns against the trap of being satisfied with an intellectual understanding and emphasizes the importance of one's own experience: "Don't trust my words!"
It seems like you no longer need teachers.
_“Go to the experience of being……….you fell deeply asleep”_
Never looked at it that way, brilliant.
i didn't get it
@@ВсадникАпокалипсиса-я9е
He said at the end: "....that's what meditation is - falling 'asleep' while being awake".
This is difficult to grasp in words; our own experience will clarify.
I don’t agree. When you are deeply asleep you have no awareness of your body, your breathing or the world.
In meditation you are aware of everything going on, your breathing.
The 2 experiences are markedly different
@@sallyarterton2702 it's because in meditation your prefrontal cortex (so called abstract mind, analyzer ) and default mode network still work together. When we fall in deep sleep, the default mode network is being switched off. Deep sleep has no qualias in comparison to being awake or in REM sleep. I think Rupert means, that in deep sleep consciousness does not dissappear, but it has no qualia in it. It's a drastically different point of view on what our consciousness is. We believe that consciousness = qualia, but he says that it's not only qualia. That sounds doubtful, but interesting idea nevertheless. At first we have to mark, when qualia begins to work. All we have is a set of qualias (hearing, seeing, sensing, thinking etc)
Some clarification on Nisaragadatta's teachings on Turia teeta, The Absolute, ParaBrahman would be useful here. Also his reference to " I am not the I AM but I Am that by which I know I AM". Also Ramana's mention of "Jagrat Sushupti " ( wakeful sleep). These terms seem to indicate something prior to Awareness
Yes it’s the great knowing 😁
Nisargadatta, to me, seems on another level, not based on my limited understanding, but based on my intuition. He said that ultimately even the I AM dissolves in the Absolute. Maybe it is only semantics. I wonder how useful it is to even talk about something that can't be talked about?
"Got it" :) What a lovely exchange. Thank you both!
Thank you Rupert 🙏❤
Thank you soo much Rupert! ❤
Did you sleep well? ( or not well) last night?
You will answer one way or another. Yes or no.
If “ awareness “ disappears in deep sleep, who or what knows the answer to this question about the quality of your nights sleep?
Ponder this 🙏
This participant is asking a really good question that I think was not fully addressed
Yes. What was that person hoping to get from that question? Any amount of explanation could not deliver a direct experience that could satisfy. I think Rupert is trying too hard. The finger eclipses the moon it's pointing to, and becomes another distraction.
He got the answer but it was not what he was expecting. Rupert says awareness is primary. But there is something behind awareness, where you are not even aware that you are; the vast NOTHINGness. Many sages say this Nothingness is primary.
@@TejasPatil-z6j but nothingness does not have awareness of anything, awareness means getting sensations
@@ВсадникАпокалипсиса-я9еnothingness and Consciousness are the same thing. Dionysus called it the luminous darkness, Buddhists call it Sunyãtã.
@@vinceofyork that are mutually exclusive terms
As much as I respect Rupert's work, I think he's missing the point in this case. Let me expand with a slightly modified quote:
"We'd like to say something about nothing. And the thing that we'd like to say is that nothing is still something.
We have discussed the idea of the difference between what we call All That Is, and what we have referred to as The One.
Now it's all in a sense God if you want to use that term, but The One as we have discussed is a homogeneous, unbroken existence that has no awareness of itself, has no experience of itself.
When it has been discussed either in metaphysics or in science that everything came from nothing, it's not really about the idea of non-existence.
That's very different than nothing and that's why we said nothing is still something.
But it is an undifferentiated state that has no awareness of self and no experience and it is that nothing that we're talking about.
No experience, no thing, no awareness because there is no reflection.
Without a reflection there is no awareness - because in order for you to know something, there has to be a distinction.
Otherwise if it's totally unbroken, there is nothing to reflect back to you that you exist.
So The One has no awareness of its existence.
It is simply the pure state of existence itself.
But within The One there is an aspect that does know itself, that does experience reflection - and that is consciousness."
To put it shortly: consciousness has a quality/property common to all conscious things: reflectiveness, whereas pure being doesn't have any inherent quality and is completely undefined and 'unexperiencable'. Consciousness happens in being and requires being, but being doesn't require consciousness to be.
Well, not too fast. You said: "... is a homogeneous, unbroken existence that has no awareness of itself, has no experience of itself." And then also said: "But within The One there is an aspect that does know itself, that does experience reflection - and that is consciousness."
Talking about an absolutely ineffable and absolutely transdencent (and yet fully immanent) so-called 'aspect' like it's some sort of a typical discernable human quality... When, How, and Why that aspect acts, or behaves or expresses itself? When, How, Why? If The One stands beyond the time/space continuum, then even having 'aspect' would also be meaningless. And The One by definition must stands beyond and prior to spatio temporal manifestation realms.
It'd be very anthropocentric, and even (innocently I must say, no offence) out of arrogance to even begin describing or, even attempt to analytically via language explain 'that' which stands beyond language to begin with. In other words, the very source, or origin of the 'knowing' itself cannot be known; logic 101.
Now, if that, which is said to be homogenous, unbroken existence has no let's say gnosis/wisdom (to differentiate it from 'knowing'/'understanding') prior to what we'd call 'awareness', then logically speaking, 'awareness' itself cannot simply pop out of that which stands before awareness! Again, we need to tread lightly here as in such deep waters we need to avoid any form of anthropocentric thinking patterns and mental construction, otherwise we'd entrap ourselves into even more delusional constructions.
The absolute reality is simply ineffable to put into language, period. I guess if I have to use words to even attempt to get close to a proper description (which is impossible), it'd be through meaningful paradoxes. The One of Plotinus, or the Parabrahman stands beyond language, beyond being, beyond non-being, and even beyond awareness; but that DOES NOT mean that the very ineffable and absolute origin of all itself lacks anything. It simply transcends awareness in kind, and yet its nature profoundly expresses outward (and inward) some sort of ineffable manifestation that is even beyond awareness of any kind. If we cannot reach, or experience that, it doesn't mean that there is no reality to it.
@@joajoajb A lot of prejudices, and a lot of unfounded assumptions that are out of place without even understanding what I meant in my comment.
Honestly has nothing to do with what I tried to describe as a logical problem with what the OG said in her/his comment, non whatsoever. I can get technical if needed, and get into why for example Plotinus avoids defining, or describing his crucial idea/concept of 'The One' in his Enneads. There are reason why we have the profound practice of Neti Neti in Vedanta that goes back to the very early Upanishads... I can go on and on and bring about more examples as to why it is absolutely important to not confuse our limited, narrow minded and incredibly canonical and anthropocentric point of view, with 'that' which stands beyond language, experience, awareness, and even being and non-being whichever you prefer to define them.
I guess Shankaracharya and Plotinus were dishonest with themselves after all!
You said: "old wise sayings, " You cannot know what You are, You can only Be what You are without knowing ". " The Absolute doesn't Know that It Is"...etc."
And I must you don't even seem to fully understand what you yourself quoted here. Did you even read what I said in my post regarding 'knowing'? I don't like to quote myself, but just for the reference I said: " the very source, or origin of the 'knowing' itself cannot be known; logic 101. " which simply is the same thing.
There is no doubt that the absolute ultimate reality ineffable and profoundly IS all and none. I Am That, period. However, that has nothing to do with indicating the logical errors in people's mind when it comes to articulating the matter in language, which is the only medium with which we can communicate in this comment section, isn't it?
In all seriousness, is that really difficult to wrap your head, and comprehend the fact, that no 'negative' or 'positive' concepts, no notions such as 'incapability' or 'capability', no characteristics, qualities, quantities or patterns, none whatsoever can be applied to 'that' which stands beyond language, beyond thought, beyond mind, and even beyond 'isness'?
When one says (in the original comment) The One doesn't know itself, this is to be taken in the sense of what he has in superabundance and not as a defect.
In other words, standing beyond 'knowing' itself and prior to it, (weather I as an ego/personality I can experience that or not) doesn't mean a so-called incapability or a defect, it simply means 'that' which is the very origin of 'knowing' and 'being' is of such an ineffable, and transcendent nature that cannot be even realised by 'knowing', or by even 'isness'. The sweet nectar of such understanding is that, at the very same time, WE ARE THAT which is absolutely transcendent, and yet immanent in all. I Am That, and yet neither Am, or That, or even eventually 'I' has no ultimate reality to them. Ineffably profound silence is the answer.
@@konnektlive you explain it very well. How can you explain that which is ineffable. It’s really that simple. You can even say: I AM, that’s enough. I always am, in every waking, conscious, unconscious etc state, they are used as labels in language as language is highly fragmenting that which just is.
Same thing for some is difficult to comprehend about beings. There are infinite beings within an infinite void/the endless. How can you comprehend a being like let’s say an angel or demon or spirit, or god of some kind, some beings vibrate or express themselves in such form that human mind can’t comprehend, like you can’t hear fluttering wings of a butterfly, or only a bat can hear an insect flying in the night sky through echo location, some folks are very sensitive like a tunnuing fork that can pick those vibrations up, but generally they are labelled insane 😂.
But basically ineffable can express itself in human and every other possible and impossible to imagine form and shape and being. It’s a being within one and only being/void/endless/observer/god/ insert any other name that helps you to label it.
Why also in entertainment the stories with unknown aspects are so thrilling. You can’t know the unknown with language or logic, it’s a perfect element to a great story. As your mind keeps wandering, what the hell just happened. And the answers ideal are infinite. As is our true nature. It is ineffable, beyond words. You can experience it all the time though.
I wonder if when we dream, are we just dreaming of other forms that take shape within the ineffable infinity?
A great explanation there. And it is good to question. Blind following is a dangerous thing. Don’t just take my words, examine them, if they serve everything with love, they are right words, if they discriminate against the whole, they’re othering perhaps there’s something to inspect.
Wonderful explanation 🩵
I hope this helps to understand. Someone explained this to me & I got it in a flash.
Deep sleep is NOT the absence of awareness/consciousness, it is the absence of objects, or the content of thoughts. No thought, no images, no emotions. However when we wake up we recall that we were in deep sleep. "hey I slept like a log, don't remember anything!" What is that which remembers you slept like a log? THAT which remembers the deep sleep experience is the knowing consciousness that is always present and always ON! it never shuts off. Even when the body dies. We are Brahman.
🙏
I don't see that the awareness remembers. It is aware of the memories stored in the thoughts/mind/brain, but that's not the same as the awareness remembering. Also, it does not experience the illusion of time, so there can't be any such thing as memory.
@@Kube_Dog Yes this is a good point & I am not claiming any great knowledge. However this is my understanding from long study. There is a correlation or a shared partnership between the biological brain activity, like neurons firing, and consciousness. Keeping in mind that consciousness is not produced by the brain, but interacts with it or somehow the biological brain works like a receiver of consciousness, an antenna if you like, or a filter. It's all quite mysterious, but there is solid scientific understanding of these principles. Google Bernardo Kastrup and investigate his videos. I have been deeply interested in this stuff for a long time and I learned not to come to any conclusions or beliefs, but just to try and understand. Thank you for your comment.
Mark
Could just be a quick unconscious inference made by the awareness as soon as you start to wake up, which later becomes a kind of false memory of being aware of deep sleep.
@@karanvasudeva5424 Yes, I've also thought of this possibility and honestly I have to say I don't know. However like Rupert explains, something is still there and functioning that allows us to experience this void. So to me it seems to line up with the experience. Quite mysterious. Thank you.
@@mrkcioffi The fact is we can't be ALWAYS aware so there is something prior to awareness and we can't know what it is.
Consciousness or Awareness is a dualistic concept. It implies a knowers and a known ( the known is PHENOMENA in waking and dreaming, ABSENCE in deep sleep, and ultimately AWARENESS itself as an object).
Beyond duality is that which is prior to consciousness but it cannot be communicated because it does and doesn't exist, which excludes even the concept of consciousness.
so in wakeness we feel duality and in deep sleep is where nonduality appears?
Thank you for this sharing, can’t thank you enough 🙏🏼
Endless space, or consciousness, has always existed. The objects within endless space, including the finite universe, are objects within consciousness. A person, an object, is born into already existing consciousness. A person dies, the body as an object, leaves consciousness, but infinite consciousness still exists.
God is the Absolute Ultimate, the First and the Last, the Forever Existing.
I don't know much about your nonsensical endless space thing. Endless space is not consciousness. Consciousness is God.
Nor do I know why these western masters keep replacing consciousness and awareness with God. It's God. The Actual God. Say it as it is. Say God. Say, it is God.
I'm so insanely beyond all these western baby boys, including every single youtuber on this channel, every single one with no exception, it's literally hurting my brain, I put that on my mother and everything.
@@Aed-Dibona Yes, it is God. My metaphor didn't work for you. God bless!
I feel you. The sense of spaciousness feels like it is always there but there is something behind it. If you go deep into meditation, you will lose sense of not only your being but also the spaciousness. This field is vast nothingness, it cannot be described, it can only be felt during meditation.
Why does pizza taste the way it does?
@@TejasPatil-z6j There is no other way to communicate in this comment section.
Unless I am misunderstanding Rupert here, he seems to be saying that deep sleep is the highest or most fundamental state of consciousnese.
As far as I know, most of Indian philosophy would not agree with that view at all.
Traditionally speaking, the Vedic view as per the upanishads say there are broadly speaking 4 main states of consciousness..
1 Waking state
2 Dreaming state
3 Deep sleep state
4 Self illuminating Awareness or "turiya" ("the forth")
The 3rd state called "deep sleep" is not a state of awareness (as Rupert seems to say here) but is one of "unawareness" in which only the causal or karmic level of mind is operative. Its basically a blank or dark state of ignorance where only the most subtle instinctual level of mind is still working.
If that 3rd level were no longer to function then a person would basically die when they entered deep sleep because nothing of them would be carried on through the sleep state.
The purest and most fundamental state of consciousness is not 1,2 or 3 (above) but is the fourth state of turiya - pure formless awareness which is radiantly self aware.
True. Turya is called awareness and beyond this awareness is vast nothingness where you do not even know that you are. This state is known as Turyatita.
I think this classic confusion arises at the very threshold of a breakthrough. The roots of this is habitual identification with the "Feeling of Knowing", which ultimately is a feeling and therefore gives rise to a tug of war, so to speak, between the mind trying to identify with it as opposed to the question not even arising because of knowing.
Jesús gave the best criteria to decide who is a real teacher: “Wherefore by their fruits yet shall know them” The “fruits” of Rupert’s teachings are thousand of people who have found peace, solace and happiness by the love and compassion that emanate from his words. But there will always be people that will rather eat bitter or rotten fruits, that is the world.
The main question is
" Can consciousness even be aware of itself or it's surroundings without thoughts???"
Isn't it the thoughts which really makes consciousness conscious and without them nothing actually is???
Respond if someone can provide some impulse ❤
És el sentir, la commoció
Can the Sun shine without shining on an object?
@@schoolofinnerstanding2739 oh yes this analogy makes perfect sense I would still BE, but I feel like I would not be as I'm now with this whole content, I would simply be being without any sense of myself that I have right now that's why it feels to me like I wouldn't BE in the absence of content which gives me the sense of ME, the someone!
Sí, si aquesta Cosa té la capacitat de ser diversa sense ser dos, llavors pot aparèixer en un lloc on aquest lloc es la Cosa mateixa d'una manera diversa i a través de canvis constants pot construir una agrupació de conciencia - cos - per el qual pot arribar a reconèixer-se@@schoolofinnerstanding2739
Beautiful ❤️🙏🏻
What about going under anesthesia? Where you close your eyes and then just wake up. You don’t dream. And the time passes by like hours but to you as the person going under you felt like you just closed your eyes and opened it back up instantly. There was no awareness of time. Is that deep sleep? If it is, I wonder if I have never went into deep sleep because I am aware of dreaming. Yes the time is a bit different like I can be sleeping for 8 hrs but I feel like I’ve only slept for less. However it isn’t as instant as going under anesthesia.
Can someone help answer?
Title: "Exploring the Precedence of Consciousness: Delving into Existence Itself"
**Introduction:**
The inquiry into the existence of something preceding consciousness delves into the fundamental nature of reality and the essence of being. This exploration transcends conventional understanding, inviting a profound investigation into the origins of awareness.
**Key Points:**
1. **The Primacy of Knowing:**
- All experiences are grounded in knowing or recognition, suggesting an inherent aspect of awareness within existence itself.
- Recognition extends even to the acknowledgment of the absence of consciousness during deep sleep, indicating a foundational knowing that underlies all states of awareness.
2. **Existence Prior to Awareness:**
- The discussion unfolds with the proposition that something may exist prior to awareness. If awareness arises from something, then that underlying existence must precede awareness.
- However, attempting to conceptualize this pre-awareness state is inherently challenging, as knowing itself emerges from awareness. Thus, any attempt to grasp what exists prior to awareness is inherently limited.
3. **Challenging Materialism:**
- Materialism posits that awareness emerges from a prior material reality. This perspective is critiqued by questioning how matter could be known prior to the emergence of awareness.
- The discussion challenges the validity of postulating something prior to awareness, urging a closer examination of the evidence provided by direct experience.
4. **Reinterpreting Deep Sleep:**
- Deep sleep is recontextualized as a state where awareness persists without being cognizant of specific phenomena. Rather than an absence of awareness, deep sleep is portrayed as a state where awareness shines in its purest form, unencumbered by mental constructs.
- This reevaluation challenges the common assumption that deep sleep signifies the absence of awareness, suggesting instead that it represents a return to the fundamental state of being.
5. **Reality Beyond Perception:**
- A paradigm shift is proposed, positioning deep sleep as the primary condition of reality. From this vantage point, the waking state is perceived as a veiled interpretation of reality, colored by sensory input and conceptual frameworks.
- Reality is depicted as the unadulterated expression of pure being, transcending the limitations imposed by perception and conceptualization.
**Conclusion:**
The exploration into the existence of something prior to consciousness traverses philosophical, metaphysical, and experiential realms. By questioning conventional assumptions and reinterpreting deep sleep as a state of pristine awareness, the discourse prompts a reevaluation of the nature of reality itself. Ultimately, the inquiry invites individuals to engage in introspective exploration and meditation, transcending conceptual limitations to touch the essence of consciousness beyond the confines of subject-object relationships.
There is an unyielding pang of despondency within beingness. The inability to be stabilised in beingness. We know of an intelligence, it’s potentiality to refract, modulate, illuminate into multiplicity and diversity of innumerable things because of an overflowing of LOVE. The limited human vessel is a downstream product of it. It can only trace back to being an entity that is Conscious through visceral and dream experiences because of its inherent limitation. According to Barbara Marciniak, the author of bringers of dawn, the handicap or inability to go into our true depth is because our DNA, it’s 12 strands double helix was clipped and reduced to 2 by our ancestors for the purpose of control. I think the yearning, the impulse comes from our indignation, the indignity to be limited, reduced and in servitude to the hierarchical order not of our doing. Essentially a feeling that we are more than just human cattles to be exploited and weighed down. The dissatisfaction comes from there for these spiritual quest, to yearn liberation from psychosomatic bondage.
Title: "Exploring the Nature of Consciousness: Is There Something Prior to Awareness?"
In this thought-provoking discussion, the speaker delves into the depths of consciousness, questioning whether there exists something prior to awareness itself. The dialogue unfolds with an exploration of the fundamental nature of knowing and the implications it carries for our understanding of reality.
**Key Points:**
1. **The Nature of Knowing:**
- The conversation starts with the assertion that everything ultimately resolves into recognition or knowing. Even the recognition of the absence of consciousness during deep sleep is itself a form of knowing.
- The speaker posits that there exists an underlying knowing, which is inherent to all experience. This knowing is suggested to be the foundation upon which awareness emerges.
2. **Prior to Awareness:**
- The dialogue then delves into the concept of something existing prior to awareness. If awareness arises from something, then that something must precede awareness.
- It is proposed that this pre-awareness state cannot be known because knowing itself arises from awareness. Therefore, attempting to conceptualize what exists prior to awareness is futile.
- The speaker critiques materialism, the belief that awareness emerges from a prior material reality. This perspective is challenged by questioning how matter could be known prior to the emergence of awareness.
3. **The Nature of Deep Sleep:**
- Deep sleep is reinterpreted as a state where awareness persists without being aware of anything. Rather than the absence of awareness, it is portrayed as a state where awareness shines in its purest form, unobscured by thoughts, sensations, or perceptions.
- The conventional view of deep sleep as the absence of awareness is challenged, suggesting that it stems from the presumption that awareness is a product of the body or mind.
4. **Reality Beyond Perception:**
- A shift in perspective is proposed, viewing deep sleep as the primary condition of reality. From this standpoint, the waking state is seen as a veiled perception of reality, colored by thoughts, sensations, and perceptions.
- Reality is depicted as the shining of pure being, unbounded and infinite. The limitations of perception in the waking state hinder a clear understanding of this fundamental reality.
5. **The Experience of Being:**
- The dialogue concludes with an invitation to explore the pure experience of being through meditation. This practice is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, allowing one to touch the essence of consciousness beyond the constraints of subject-object relationships.
**Supporting Details:**
- The conversation navigates through various layers of understanding, questioning the assumptions underlying our perception of reality.
- Analogies such as deep sleep as the shining of awareness and meditation as falling asleep while awake aid in elucidating complex concepts.
- The critique of materialism highlights the limitations of viewing consciousness as an emergent property of matter, challenging conventional scientific paradigms.
- Through introspective inquiry, the speaker encourages a direct exploration of consciousness, transcending conceptual frameworks and embracing the immediacy of experience.
**Conclusion:**
In probing the nature of consciousness and its relationship to reality, the discussion challenges conventional notions and invites a deeper exploration of our fundamental experience. By questioning the existence of something prior to awareness and reinterpreting deep sleep as a state of pure being, the dialogue opens avenues for contemplation and meditation to uncover the essence of consciousness beyond conceptual limitations.
How do we make sense of all this after examining tens of thousands of Near Death Experiences (NDEs)? It seems that reality intensifies during these moments, with heightened clarity and the emergence of new, unimaginable worlds as the brain approaches death. Awareness appears to strengthen, yet so do the sensory experiences-sight, sound, smells-escalate dramatically as the brain shuts down. This presents a paradox we struggle to explain.
It appears that our waking state, governed by a typical healthy brain, acts as a robust filter for reality, shielding us from experiences beyond the ordinary 3-4 dimensional world of space-time and matter. In contrast, during the dream state, we encounter bizarre, distorted worlds and experiences (in my case), while in deep sleep, we have no recollection of any experience.
However, in the dying state, experiences seem to intensify, and those who undergo such experiences often describe it as the most profound state to be in. Thus, the deep sleep state or meditation without content may not truly represent a normal state of being; perhaps it is a state to recognize one's true nature, akin to divinity itself. Anecdotal evidence suggests that after death, experiences expand infinitely, with endless possibilities of encountering new worlds and different versions of oneself.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
There is no knowing without knowledge so the can't be awareness without something to be aware of.
The Unmanifest ( Absolute, Nirguna Brahman, the Essence of Divinity, the Father...) is prior to manifestation ( awareness , being, saguna Brahman, the Son, Creation...).
This is understood by masters like Nisgardatta, Ibn Arabi, Master Eckhart, Shankara...
And it is possible to recognize the unmanifest experiencially ( or in a non-experience). How could this be possible? That I can't say, I think it is impossible to explain.
@joajoajb correct me if I'm wrong. In meditation, we strive to take awareness as far as possible in order to get the sense of this vast nothingness, absolute, parabramhan right? Because naturally, there is no experiencer nor there is any experience beyond awareness.
Deep sleep is still something known...we can relate it as the absence of all phenomena; but there is something which encompasses this play of absence /presence and which is beyond and prior all of that...and that susbtance is what is called Parabrahman in the hindu tradition...it is the absence of the absence,which knows the coming and going of awareness;so awareness is not the ultimate,the origin...there is clearly something which is prior to the capacity of being aware in deep sleep...that is called the absolute,Parabrahman,the stateless state ,or the absolute dreamer...
Didn't Nisargadatta describe it as beyond consciousness and unconsciousness? I find it confusing if mind, consciousness and awareness are all used interchangeably by Rupert. It took me bloody five or six years to get my head around reading Nisargadatta and finally settled with it. That is the biggest difference between Nisargadatta and Rupert so far for me.
@@MarkusMutscheller Yes,beyond being and not being,beyond the manifest and the unmanifest...Parabrahman,there is no Consciousness there
If knowing never rises and falls then why foes it feel different when I meditate and goo into deep sleep consciously compared to when I am asleep, where I do not know anything?
Isn't easier to say we have no memories from deep sleep, that doesn't mean we don't exist for those time periods but we have not memory to refer too afterwards. same as in concussions people have gaps in their memory.
Precisely
If he says he was not aware while sleeping , if he was aware then he is not sleeping . When he was sleeping aware of deep sleep. Sleeping means realization can happen only after wake up , that guy question is funny but he is still a seeker or learner its fine to take his question.
Aatmiya BRAHMAN
Be Blessed
HARE KRSNA
CONSCIOUSNESS is Not Awareness.
Awareness is because of CONSCIOUSNESS.
Objects of Experience & Information are appearing in Consciousness creating awareness about them.
Very Respectfully 🙏 Loving 💜 One & all Conscious/Consciousness fellow feelers, thinkers, practitioners.
Hari Bol. 🎉🕉️🙏😩
Assuming something cannot come out of nothing then there has to be something prior. At least that is one take on that question. There is no start...
Thank you!
Thank you Rupert for deconstructing materialism and the ridiculous assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon.
In my opinion, a question was asked in a completely different way than it was answered. Rupert led the man to "ask" the wrong question by asking him back questions too early.
The underlying fundamental of knowing can exist, but it's unlikely that one exists. But...
If we imagine that we live in a computer simulation, then our science can only measure one bit of data. But you can't reach the code behind that, the code that is responsible for generating the data, the bits that we perceive. And that code is knowing, it can do practically everything, it is not bound by concepts, there is no limit to it etc.
The problem is that even that code is built on top of something and that something in the computer world is computer hardware and electricity. I think that the question was about that and this question has nothing to do with the materialistic question.
This is a really fantastic about a question that addresses something that's extremely difficult to clarify! So, I'll take a chance.
Awareness and perception are not the same. Awareness is Pure Cognizance and entirely "prior to" perception [Existence existing within Awareness; "out there" existing merely as a function of perception]. Perception is what Awareness is being "cognizant of" (i.e., Subject/object).
Perception is not "cognizance", nor is perception "cognizant". Rather, perception is a bio-mechanical functioning of sensation [of material "information"], which translates as "experience" - all a function of the mind-body organism, that "sensation" simultaneously including intellect and conditioning/experience, which is an unwitting and entirely reactionary "amalgamate" of the ever changing, temporal and reactionary (non spontaneous) individual identity of the separately appearing mind-body organism (itself also temporary) - the entire process being the problem "standing in the way of" actual personal Cognizance/Awareness/Reality.
Awareness is actually "impersonal" and constantly is, while perception is "personal" and intermittently exists only while waking/dreaming. Perception doesn't exist in deep sleep, yet Awareness exists as a constant - during deep sleep [and during everything and anything else]. Without Awareness, the mind-body organism and its perception/intellect/conditioning (i.e., "experience") would not/could not exist. Awareness is "I Am" from which everything flows. Perception/intellect/conditioning/experience tends very heavily to thwart and work against that flow.
Hard to say and probably clear as mud and, after this comment, that's probably my name too (apologies in advance).
Again, this is a fantastic video from Rupert Spira!
It is late and I probably mess it up but I am compelled to answer so I just follow that. I like it but I feel it is missing one step. There is perception agreed, but there is also getting conscious of perception. We perceive all the time, but are not always conscious of it. Perception is knowing - level one. And when we get conscious of it - we know that we know - level two. And all of this happens in awareness that is as you described. That's how I understood Nisargadatta who talks about mind, consciousness and awareness. What do you think?
@@MarkusMutscheller
Hey there, Markus!
✨🌈👋🥴👍✨
We're saying practically the very same thing with different words. Your use of the phrase "getting conscious" is my use of the words "awareness" and "cognizance".
Assumed word meanings constantly cause people to misunderstand and that creates real problems.
One of the very major difficulties is that there are no words in the English language for some of the things from spiritual philosphy in India. It's difficult to reconcile that because, in our ignorance, we assign all kinds of mistaken meaning and go with it.
@@Da_Xman Had the same thought last night. I just imagined a really talented and eager Indian soccer player, working his way up in an Indian soccer club with the best Indian soccer coaches available. Eventually, he goes to Germany or Brazil, thinking he understands soccer and realizes there is another whole level of depth there, based on 100 years of world-class soccer-playing culture that you simply can't find in India.
When it comes to spirituality, Advaita Vedanta, it is the opposite. Not only that, but the difference is much bigger. We talking about thousands of years of millions of people seriously contemplating these matters.
We hardly have reached Kindergarten understanding in the West. This is very apparent when you compare the meetings of Rupert with Nisargadatta. The level of the questioners and their understanding is so much higher. This is reflected in the depths of the questions they are asking and the answers he gives. I can follow Rupert quite easily. But I have read I AM THAT about eight times over the past eight years, a paragraph at a time, deeply contemplating about it, and I feel I still only understand about 10 to 20% of what he says.
Saying this, I woke up this morning with the thought - why the need to understand anything?
I wonder if it is a detour because all mystics say, the Absolute is right there, It is not in the future. Understanding is linked to a process in time with a result at the end. That's not what mystics refer to, I believe.
Food for thought - you see - here I go again - we can't help ourselves - the urge to understand is overwhelming.
I wonder if the last realization is the realization that there is nothing to understand. The Absolute is the unknown and it is infinite. Understanding is the process of knowing more. It is a function of biology and survival.
Understaning things better, animal behaviour, human behaviour, nature behaviour - all of it improves survival. Therefore, evolution selects for it. No wonder we are a bunch of extremely brainy people compared to animals and nature. No wonder we have so much control and power over them.
But this is fueled by the fear of death, the drive to survive.
Enlightenment is transcending the fear of death - all fears are gone, the mystics report.
So, to conclude, I don't think we can ever get to enlightenment by understanding. It has to be a total surrender to the unknown which will probably feel like death - another clue given by mystics.
If that is true, why did the non-dual teaching survive?
It has to have a purpose otherwise humanity would have ditched it. And I wonder if the purpose is to try the path of understanding to the end, only to realize, that understanding won't work.
I wonder if it is the same with the devotional belief-based path - faith. The first one is the rational path, faith is the irrational path - just two sides of the same coin - which could be called "doing something". Thinking or believing requires a doer. But a doer is based on the illusion of a separate entity - therefore, thinking and doing are strengthening the Ego.
Only letting go of both will also let go of the Ego. But even "letting go" can be turned into an ego activity. So doing nothing, forgetting everything, melting into the current moment and residing in it might be all that is needed.
Hi I am Clay; Nameste Thank you Rupert
Beautiful
Is the absolute the same as awareness? Is there something prior to "I am"? Is awareness prior to "I am" or does the "I am" arise in awareness?
I am is pointing 👉 out sense of I . Awareness do not point out I am. which is the mind which is realized pointed out to awareness as I am. In other words awareness takes or need mind support to pointed 👉 out to itself I am
Through my personal deep meditation practice, I could say that the sense "I am" is just behind person, observing all the activity of body and mind. Just behind "I am" is just "I", the awareness, or spaciousness. And behind that is vast nothingness, which cannot be named and this is what sages call absolute
2:19 Materialism is the belief that there is something out of which awareness arises, some matter prior to awareness out of which awareness arises which then knows this stuff called matter.
8:25 In deep sleep reality shines in its purest form. In the waking state reality is colored by thoughts, feelings,sensations, perceptions and is thus limited.
Title: "Exploring the Depths of Consciousness: Is There a Preceding State?"
**Introduction:**
- The discussion revolves around the nature of consciousness and whether there exists a state preceding it.
- Key points include the concept of awareness arising from something prior to itself.
**Recognition and Knowing:**
- All experiences ultimately resolve into recognition and knowing.
- Deep sleep is recognized as a state devoid of awareness.
- Raises the question: What exists prior to consciousness?
**Prior to Awareness:**
- If there is something prior to awareness, it suggests awareness arises from it.
- Postulating something prior to awareness is akin to materialism.
- Materialists believe in a substance (e.g., matter) from which awareness emerges.
**Challenges of Identifying Prior to Awareness:**
- Prior to awareness, nothing can be known because awareness has not yet arisen.
- The concept of something prior to awareness remains speculative.
- Deep sleep is often presumed to be the absence of awareness, but this assumption is questioned.
**The Nature of Deep Sleep:**
- Deep sleep is reexamined as a state of pure awareness, uncolored by thoughts or perceptions.
- It challenges the notion that the waking state provides the clearest view of reality.
- Deep sleep is posited as the most accurate state of perceiving reality.
**Reality and Perception:**
- Reality is viewed as shining in its purest form in deep sleep.
- Thoughts, images, sensations, and perceptions in the waking state limit our perception of reality.
- The waking state is characterized as a filtered view of reality.
**Experience of Being:**
- The discussion shifts to the experience of pure being.
- Meditation is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, tapping into the pure experience of being.
**Conclusion:**
- The exploration delves into the depths of consciousness and the nature of reality.
- It challenges conventional views of consciousness and invites contemplation on the nature of awareness.
**Supporting Details:**
- The conversation explores the limitations of perception in different states of consciousness.
- Deep sleep is reinterpreted as a state of pure awareness rather than the absence of it.
- Materialist perspectives on consciousness are contrasted with alternative viewpoints.
- The experience of being is highlighted as a key focus of meditation and introspection.
This summary encapsulates the main points and supporting details of the conversation on consciousness and its preceding state.
Beard looks nice on you Rupert ❤
When we sleep WITH DREAMS we are witnessing the abcense of awareness. When we wake up we become aware of not being aware prior to awareness..
So the usual sleep with dreams is prior to awareness(consciousness).
When we sleep without dreams we are not aware of not being aware.
So dreams are opposite to awareness.
Title: "Exploring the Depths: Is There a Preceding Realm to Consciousness?"
**Introduction:**
- The discussion revolves around the nature of consciousness and whether there exists something prior to it.
- The dialogue starts with the idea that everything eventually resolves into recognition and knowing, including the acknowledgment of nothingness in deep sleep.
- It introduces the concept of an underlying knowing that precedes awareness or consciousness.
**Key Points:**
1. **Nature of Knowing:**
- Knowing is described as something that arises and falls, similar to the objects of awareness.
- However, the question arises: does the act of knowing itself rise and fall? If so, what does it rise and fall in?
2. **Existence Prior to Awareness:**
- The discussion posits the existence of something prior to awareness, suggesting that awareness arises from this prior existence.
- This prior existence is contemplated as a state where awareness has not yet arisen, making it impossible to know anything about it because knowing itself arises from awareness.
3. **Materialism vs. Direct Experience:**
- Materialism is criticized for postulating that there is something prior to awareness (e.g., matter) from which awareness arises.
- Direct experience is emphasized as the primary source of understanding, questioning the need to imagine something beyond what is directly experienced.
4. **Interpretation of Deep Sleep:**
- Deep sleep is traditionally viewed as the absence of awareness, but this perspective is challenged.
- Instead, deep sleep is reframed as the primary condition of simply being aware, without the addition of thoughts, images, sensations, or perceptions.
5. **Reality and Perception:**
- The waking state is presented as a state furthest removed from reality, where reality is veiled by thoughts, images, sensations, and perceptions.
- Deep sleep, in contrast, is depicted as a state where reality shines in its purest form, unadulterated by mental constructs.
6. **Understanding Deep Sleep:**
- The difficulty in understanding deep sleep is attributed to the presumption that the waking state provides the most accurate view of reality.
- A shift in perspective is proposed, considering deep sleep as the state where reality is most accurately perceived.
7. **Pure Experience of Being:**
- The dialogue concludes with an invitation to explore the pure experience of being, devoid of subject-object relationships.
- Meditation is likened to falling asleep while remaining awake, hinting at a state of awareness beyond conceptual understanding.
**Supporting Details:**
- The conversation unfolds through a series of questions and reflections, allowing for a thorough exploration of each point.
- Examples, such as the experience of deep sleep and the process of meditation, are used to illustrate the concepts discussed.
- Critiques of materialism and conventional interpretations of consciousness provide additional context for the arguments presented.
**Conclusion:**
- The exploration into the realm preceding consciousness challenges traditional perspectives and invites a deeper inquiry into the nature of reality and awareness.
- By reframing concepts such as deep sleep and the waking state, the dialogue encourages a shift in perspective towards a more direct and experiential understanding of consciousness.
Once you marry your experience of 'self-enquiry meditation' (focussing on the feeling felt as 'I' - prior to language) with the electrical interpretation of 'Non-destructive implosive charge-compression' as shown by Dan Winter (youtube) - things will never be seen the same again.
Its all about pure and universal principle (exclusively negentropic, electrically defining; Life, metabolism, immunity, perception (inc colour) and what it is to be electrically centripetal or subjectively grounded)
- learning to abstract and to sustain a sense felt point of focus that is non-verbal - to allow the implosion of charge at the Planck threshold in order to access and embed in the larger array (which, on the contrary, is the 'collective UNCONCIOUS' or 'ancestral memory' i.e. the shareable wave)
Mmmmm, I have some doubt about it. You say that the experience of being aware is present in this deep sleep but as this gentleman explained, you only recall and remember the experience once you are awake, so it could mean that the experience of being aware is only recalled while awake. The key here is recalling (remembering). So it means that you need to be awake in the waking stare to know that you were aware in deep sleep. This doesn’t mean in itself that you were aware during the deep sleep, it could also just be some memory that the brain creates. Because during deep sleep itself, there is no experience. You cannot experience an absence of experience, it would be an oxymoron, even nothing is not nothing, if it was really nothing, you wouldn’t be there to either remember or experience it…[[1
But when someone calls your name while you are in deep sleep you wake up. That shows that there must be awareness during deep sleep, or am I wrong? 🤔
@@maya0182if they shout in your ear yes, but otherwise I don’t think so. Do you think someone in a coma would wake up if they heard their name ? I don’t think they would… you would wake up from the dream state perhaps but deep sleep state I am not sure
Not really, it cannot be verified that you are aware during deep sleep. The man explained well. You can only know there was deep sleep once you wake up in the morning. But during deep sleep itself, how can you know that you were aware ? You don’t! Unless someone slaps you on the face. So deep sleep in a sense is also the absence of awareness. If you say no, then prove it. How can you remember being aware of nothing ? You don’t! It would be like saying that you are aware during anestisia.. you are not…
When you say "unless someone slaps you on the face" there is this assumption that awareness means being aware of something - some perception, some sensation, some feeling, some thought, etc. So your point here is not about being unable to verify that you are aware during deep sleep, but that there can be no awareness without there being something to be aware of. Is that correct?
If that's the actual point, then how do we know that we have a perception, a sensation, a feeling, a thought, etc, and that those are distinct from each other? How do we know that something is a thing? If I look out of the window and I see a car parked, how do I know there is an autonomous object there, as if it is independent of my perception of it? When I see the hood of the car from the point where I am looking from, I know it's facing a perpendicular direction and so I can imagine standing in front of it and facing the hood. Similar with the other side of the car which is invisible from my point of view.
So, what is a thing to us? It's the center around which one can move to take different viewpoints. But can one actually see the totality of the thing from any viewpoint? So, we are not aware of things outside of awareness but of potential movements of the observer in awareness. In our dealing with those things we place the thing abstractly outside of awareness as if it really exists out there as an object. But as soon as we investigate what the thing is in and of itself, we only get perspectives, which never exhaust the thing. The center of the thing stands for all the potential perspectives in which it can appear to us, including those perspectives from very up-close where the thing wouldn't look at all like a car, and from very far away where it would appear like a landscape with an invisible car in a certain direction.
Similarly we could investigate body and mind. So, that leaves with awareness itself as the great unknown. If everything is ultimately centered movement in awareness, how does one verify at all that one is aware? One cannot do so. If we think we do, we are just looking at an aspect of awareness like perception, sensation, feeling, thinking, etc. But they do not exhaust awareness. From those centered movements in awareness, awareness cannot be known as it is to itself. Only awareness can know itself as it is. So, the whole point of doing this investigation is to discover that awareness is independent of there being discernable things as centered movement or not. We could say that awareness is the potential for all things to be, hence being prior to things.
Are we (still) together at this point?
@@filip5 I think we are I will try to explain again my point, my point is not to say that there could not be awareness without being aware of something, but that you wouldn’t be able to know if there was awareness without being aware of anything, so we cannot be certain and make the assumption of awareness being the source of matter, because if there was only awareness without any object even without the nothing you wouldn’t be able to remember because there wouldn’t be an experience … nothing is still an object, what you remember is not awareness it is the nothing that you are aware of… it’s the memory created by the Brain
You do know that the world is there around you because other people can confirm it too, it’s pretty obvious that if we visit the Eiffel Tower we will both be able to say that the Eiffel Tower is there and touch it, the assumption that the world wouldn’t exist without awareness is just a theory which cannot be proved… I know it’s the favourite thing in non duality but it doesn’t make it more scientific
@@ecoutetonetre729 Well, as I explained, we cannot even know that we are aware now, in the presence of objects. If we think we know we are aware, we just infer that we must be aware since there are objects.
What I tried to explain is that awareness is always awareness whether in the presence of objects or not. I pointed to an experiential investigation to establish that fact. Are you with me there?
What you say is that there could be two kinds of awareness'es, one in the presence of objects and one without objects, the latter we cannot know since we can only know about awareness through the objects that we are aware of. And indeed from that perspective, the nothing we are aware of, must be a (brain-fabricated) memory.
The issue is that even our sense of distance or duration is a (subtle) thing in awareness. We experience our 4D world (3D space + 1D time) because we know we can move around in that world. We have built up that experience from childhood. People who always lived in an environment with little space, will interpret far away objects simply as close but small objects.
So, from that implicit framework of interpreting reality we extrapolate deep sleep as still happening in the 4D world, albeit unaware of that being so, though others can report afterwards seeing "us" while in deep sleep. Note that there is the assumption again that we are the body. While the body, like any object, is organized perception (and sensation), i.e. movement of observation around a center of attention.
Like I can imagine moving over to the front of the car and see the hood in full, I can also imagine that someone else in that position is seeing the hood in full. And afterwards that person can report to me what they saw and it will be consistent with what I expected them to see.
So, what is in fact theory and assumption? That there must be world, a body, a brain, a mind outside of awareness, that we are aware of and that has the awareness? And the common factor of that which is outside of awareness is matter? We overlook the fact that the notion of an object is just our mental focus on the center of attention of the thing we observe. All this does not change when we use instruments to aid our observation, like microscopes and telescopes.
Matter is just a label for those observations which we cannot make without the aid of instrumentation, as bodily senses are not able to penetrate the fine structure of things, as they are also not able to encompass the solar system we are in without satellites taking pictures from afar. What does all of this have in common? Awareness. Awareness is the mystery, not matter. We are trying to understand awareness. But we cannot, as awareness is not a thing, not an object. In our desire to understand our reality we imagine that matter is something outside of awareness that we can understand (better and better).
Also, this is not a solipsist stance, where the universe only exists when it is observed. It is just the way we observe is limited (and distorted) according to our viewpoint or perspective. There is obviously universal order, but it is intrinsic in awareness itself. That's all we can know anyhow. Not "my" awareness vs "your" awareness, as that assumes again that matter produces awareness, but awareness "tout court".
The issue is, that we usually do not remember deep sleep, since Usually wake up during dream sleep. But if you do wake up experiments, people will remember a feeling of existence during deep sleep.
@@filip5the problem is that you are trying to understand something which is beyond the mind with the mind and thus it create a lot of confusion in your mind. I agree that awareness doesn’t need objects to be, my point was that you wouldn’t be able to experience it without object in other words it doesn’t matter if the world actually exists or not, live your life totally and completely, that’s enlightenment, not some philosophical understanding. When one is beyond the mind one can see the truth, but if you try to get it with your mind it will turn ugly. You might be right that awareness exists during sleep you might not, nobody can know for sure and it actually doesn’t matter much, on the other hand being free from the sense of separation and doing your best in this life is much more important than trying to grasp at some philosophical answers with the mind.
For Rupert’s assertion that Consciousness is the fundamental Reality to prevail, he must have you take the first person subjective view that is done in meditation. How does he justify having us take that view? He makes an argument to persuade you to take that view of the matter. But by giving reasons why we should adopt a subjective approach (as opposed to the “objective” materialist approach) he will have to give reasons and arguments for his view. That will inevitably trigger the usual counterarguments. But we know from the long history of debate in Western and Eastern metaphysics that argumentation will not end in a conclusion we will all agree upon. Rupert is left, in practice, with having to just assume we should choose the subjective, first person view, and choose to do the practices he recommends to know Reality in the way he says it is.
The scientific-materialist approach that concludes that consciousness arises from matter has as much justification for being adopted as the first person subjective approach that Rupert prefers. Since one can’t conclusively justify which approach to take using argumentation, we have to choose which perspective/method we choose without having a conclusive reason for doing so. So I contend that we should choose which approach we use - subjective/meditational or objective/scientific - depending on the problem we are trying to solve.
Ponder the outcome of these two opposite worldview. How ? Testing it. Then, if you like the results of this experiment, throw away all metaphysical model which were only thorn used to remove the thorn of materialistic paradigm. When you are left with no thorns at all, what remains ? Peace.
@@calvinrakotobe5583 You’re offering the pragmatic approach: Asking what works? But Rupert is not only saying his subjective-Consciousness approach works, he contends that it is The Truth, Reality, the way things are. That’s a much bigger claim that I contend he does not demonstrate, although he makes it sound like he has. In general, spiritual teachers are often tempted to use the rhetoric of knowing Reality to unjustifiably justify the superiority of the approach that they are teaching.
@@jefriv Since we have all lived our life assuming that awareness is limited and temporary, it's legitimate, as a remedy to this deep unexamined belief, to propose an alternative model of the Universe in which we don't make any assumption which is not founded upon our experience : the Consciousness-only model. If the materialistic leap of faith that there is a world out there made out of matter (in other words, what I am, awareness, is limited) were not made, there will be no point in proposing the Consciousness-only model. But then Rupert invites us to test it out this new possibility that consciousness is universal in our lives (he is not imposing anything on us really), because after all, this model is much more in line with our experience, namely that the only stuff ever experienced is awareness. Having testing out the materialistic model for years (you know the results of that experience I think), I decided to live the implication of the experiential recognition that what I truly am is not finite and temporary (which only what thoughts think about me, awareness). So now I'm living my relative life as if I, awareness, am universal and I have found that I feel more connected with other people, and our planet I feel more love and intimacy. I also experience a deep peace and a quiet confidence. All my relationships seems to slowly reharmonize themselves. Have you tried this other possibility my friend ? If yes, what are the results in your life. That's what Rupert has taught me and I'm eternally grateful for that : just follow my experience all the way.
@@calvinrakotobe5583 Right. I’ve agreed that the approach Rupert teaches can be beneficial to some. (He’s an excellent teacher.) That’s the pragmatic point we agree upon. I was opposing a different claim; the problematic claim of having metaphysical certainty of objective reality due to the use of that practice.
@@jefriv Most people in the West follow (talk about, investigate, contemplate and devote their life) the objective aspect of their experience all the way to the point they manufacture an image of themselves, and belie)ve it to be absolutely true. The great religious and spiritual traditions invite us to look and examine closely the subjective aspect of our experience, that is the very self (named "I" or the experiencer) which is investigating (aware of) objects (the experienced). It is discovered to be an illusion, and its unchanging reality is... [No words can describe it]. That's why we have artist like Rupert who tries to evoke in us, through its poetical used of the english language, That in us which is changeless, untouched, unharmed, seamless, immaculate. In this regard, lots of people use negative words like I've used in the sentence before in order to draw attention to what Reality is not, paving the way to the experiential recognition of Reality as it is. That's the moment Rupert comes in : he articulates a model of Reality as I've never seen before (the Consciousness-only model) which is really just a mind portal to Reality, like self-enquiry questions are mind portal to Reality or love and beauty are feelings and perceptions portal to Reality. Don't forget that the Consciousness-only model is only a mental map which can help us, by means of contemplation, to go to Reality. In my case, I don't care that this model cannot be proved or is scientifically inaccurate. I only use this model to evoke in others the absolute truth of their experience. We should remain silent if we want to speak accurately about Reality. Or we should just go to That which is indicate by the sages throughout the centuries and find for ourself if it's true.
"The scientific-materialist approach that concludes that consciousness arises from matter has as much justification for being adopted as the first person subjective approach that Rupert prefers. Since one can’t conclusively justify which approach to take using argumentation, we have to choose which perspective/method we choose without having a conclusive reason for doing so. So I contend that we should choose which approach we use - subjective/meditational or objective/scientific - depending on the problem we are trying to solve.
The problem here is suffering. So we should just choose the subjective approach to Reality. Why ? Because it leads us to peace, the placeless place where the apparent subject of experience, and its associated object of experience, are dissolved, leaving only That. The objective scientific approach leaves us for ever in the delusion that we are an object IN the world, denying unconsciously the true Subject of experience (Awareness). Have you tried the subjective approach Jeff ? If yes, what is the results of your investigation ? I advice all my friends to follow the subjective all the way, because in my experience, peace and harmony are making themselves known in my human life thanks to this choice. The objective approach has only leads me to temporary happiness thanks to recognition by peers or acceptation by the social group or the next good meal. It wasn't enough for me so I change the direction of my attention away from the objects perceived to the Perceiver (that's the true meaning of the word "conversion" in the Christian tradition btw). I'm so happy to have make this choice two years ago; I encourage you to at least give it a change if you haven't.
Also, if you approach what Rupert says with your mind, you will have an enormous amount of objections. Why ? Because your mind has subconsciously believed and subscribed to the materialistic narrative of Reality (the objective approach) for the entirety of its life. And that''s where Rupert also comes in because he answers all these objections and allows us to go beyond them. In the materialistic model of reality, the sense of identity is derived exclusively from ideas, models, mental images, friends, activities, sports, book read, particular skills - objects. Hence, when another approach is proposed as Rupert do, the mind feels that its very existence is threatened since it derived all its identity from these objects (ideas and models in this case). The consciousness-only model invites us to discover our very own self as it is, prior to ideas. Here we find true certainty. The mind is born again, transfigured, and now in service of that absolute certainty. Peace is found.
There may become an economy of Meaning, yes, because anyone who has experience with synchronicity in nature, universal, or God, knows that AI cannot perceive that like humans. So AI entities will compete for human "workforce or content creators" who do create meaning. So when we say that AI cannot create stories infinitely like humans it is correct to believe that the perception of infinity is what makes the difference; and the difference is subtle. It seems like we can't get the conversation started in the media between leaders and citizens without Buddhism/nonduality because in Buddhism it's possible to attain widespread agreement about the objective truth of this "subtlety" from our immediate experience without any further written evidence which is going to cut through cultural and social barriers and get this conversation moving. Democracy is a conversation between citizens and leadership that happens with the help of the media and it's currently stalled, so if Buddhism is able to get us moving while we are on the eve of humanity's greatest challenge, then we need to remember this every time Democracy stalls. After some deliberation I decided that it is the job of philosophers to secularize these aspects of each religion and cultural experience so that citizens can unify this experience of subtlety in the conversation in the media.
I’ve thought about this with Nisargadatta & the absolute
So knowledge is an illusion and awereness is also an illusion. So the question "What is knowlege rising and falling in?" is wrong. An illusion isn't IN something.
Why confine the definition of "reality" to deep sleep ? If it happens it is real; If the Self dreams it is reality that the Self had these dreams.
Consciousness and matter re interrelated ,how can one be aware of colours without eyes(matter) ... Without eyes consciousness will get reduced to touch and odour...
Awareness of reality is observing own thoughts and sensations as a third person without considering the thoughts as itself...
This state can be explained by a void ego/observer without sensation and thoughts so it has no survival instinct or desire to experience something but just a blank observer...
In materialisms it’s actually not the eyes that see the colors, it is the brains. The eyes are stimulated by waves(light) and that information is processed and finally the brains create color. Yes, according to materialisms the brains are in fact God because they have creative power. Obviously this can’t be true because the brains are physical matter which itself needs to be perceived. Big loop-error there completely ignored by science in general.
Eyes and brain, waves are all physical... Even consciousness is a result of particles or molecules and the processes that form the brain and conciousness....
It does not mean any of these re God...
He is trying to undrestand it with logic of his mind therefore many question arises the answer was at the end by just being much love to everyone
must have missed something - how can you possibly "know" that deep sleep is a state of "pure awareness"? (with no content in awareness)
Also, I disagree with Rupert's notion that "deep sleep" is the closest state to reality, whereas dreaming and waking states are progressively more distorted. The content of awareness in dreams or in the waking state is as much "reality" as his purported (unknowable...) state of pure awareness with no content in deep sleep.
The "distortions" that do arise amidst awareness' content are a result of our psycho/emotional/physical reactions to and identification with this content, and belief that "what we are" is or is not "it".
The content of awareness itself is just as "real" as anything else, including the undifferentiated void.
I do like Rupert's final suggestion: "go now to the state of 'pure being'" and when the participant says he was there, Rupert responds: "you were just deeply asleep".
That is a nice instruction.
Isn't deep sleep awareness without time and space?
@@HopyHop1 I don't know.
My point is: I don't see how you (or I, or anyone, including Rupert Spira...) could ever know the answer to your question.
To "know" the answer, you would need to retain a memory of the experience of deep sleep, which, assuming Rupert's assertion of it being a state of pure awareness without content, is an impossibility: there would be no "experience" to be recorded by your subconscious to be recalled and reported later by the conscious "you".
The only response to this challenge I can imagine might be: "well, I'm an enlightened being, and you'll just have to trust me on this...", which I would disregard (and laugh at -- not because I could dispute it, but because an enlightened being would never say such a thing...)
@@wattshumphrey8422
I don't know if I'm interpreting what Spira is talking about correctly, but it seems like he suggests that the experience of awareness being aware of itself only without time and space is deep sleep. In other words, it's possible to experience deep sleep without exhibiting to a 2nd person's perspective a body lying in bed with closed eyes.
I think that Rupert says we are always in deep sleep. The analogy he uses is that the screen is always there even if absorption in the events of what is playing on the screen takes place. From what I understand of his model, deep sleep is primary from which the dream state is built upon and the waking state is a further building upon and refining of the dream state. So, we could say the screen (pure awareness) is primary upon which comic book stories take place which don't have clear physical causal relationships (dream state), which is sometimes further refined to sharp causal relationships (waking state).
I believe Rupert addresses your qualm with using the notion of "self remembering" as Ouspensky put it. How can something that's always there be remembered?
I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, but I find them quite important. Knowing what one is seems to be the most important thing that can be known if it is possible. Surely, one's idea of what one's self is will alter one's actions, priorities, fears, and values.
@@HopyHop1 I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying.
Forgive me -- I should say firstly that I'm not a fan of Rupert's teachings -- to me seems like many a word salad composed of a lot of intellectual symbols, and I'm always left absent any sense of his "knowing" (feeling instinctively) of what he speaks.
And, I have a little voice telling me that if Rupert did have such "knowing" he would not have wordy discussions with people in his sessions, and would engage only to stop their intellectualizing and steer them back to the path of their own experience. Or, absent an ability to do that, he would be silent
Accordingly, I can't do justice to a debate on what he might mean by all this.
@@wattshumphrey8422
I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying either.
"like many a word salad composed of a lot of intellectual symbols"
I don't really know what you mean by this. Perhaps if you gave an example your thoughts would become clearer to me.
"I have a little voice telling me that if Rupert did have such 'knowing' he would not have wordy discussions ..."
It's not clear to me what you mean by "knowing". What is this "knowing" that you believe Rupert pretends to have without really having. Knowing of what? Again, I'm afraid I'm not following what you're trying to express.
"I can't do justice to a debate on what he might mean by all this."
Agreed, at this point a debate seems pointless.
why does it seem there are so many words in trying to explain the unseen? Is this the intellect trying to be heard?
before consciousnesses there was nothing, awareness is the here and now
I agree with the man who asked the question, I'm not aware while sleeping. I'm just alive.
How is it possible to have an experience of not being aware?
@@joajoajb
Whoa, you built one hell of a strawman there buddy.
@@joajoajb كيف فهمت هذا من تعاليم روبرت ؟؟ تعاليم روبرت هي ان الخير والشر والإله والشيطان نفس الشيئ😂 حالات وعي محدوده لها صفات تنبع من الوعي اللامحدود عديم الصفات،الإزدواجيه حالات وعي ناتجه من الوعي الغير مزدوج
@@joajoajb
"What was the state of your existence, before life occurred?"
This question presumes that time is real. What if there is no time, and what seems to be time is a mind's way of organizing thoughts that can only take place now? Your question also presumes that you know all about this era of "before life occurred". If you "give honesty a chance" as you say, you'd have to admit that you know nothing of this "before life occurred" era other than just so stories.
Take care!
@@joajoajb In other words, if you give honesty a chance, you'd have to admit to yourself that your thoughts about this "before life occurred" era are taking place now and can only take place now. If you give honesty a chance you'd have to admit that any thoughts about any past or future event are really only thoughts that are in your mind now.
You do not have experience of the start and end of the awarness, but during deep sleep there is no awarness, it is not a presumption, it is a fact.
I was put out under anesthetic. Awareness left, and resumed in the recovery room. Awareness was gone.
One usually is aware of the passage of time upon awakening from sleep. But that doesn't occur under anesthesia. You're out one minute, and back at the same minute it seems. So using sleep as proof of awareness being continuous is not valid
I know folks more established than I am that have had awareness under anesthesia, Rupert has also said that was his experience.
looking sexy with a beard Rupert
Yes, the pre-awarness.
Dear Wise Ones, If in Deep Sleep Awareness is Closest to Pure Reality, why the Compulsion to remain Awake???
Hey people, it is what it is!!
Could be.
I think the absolute is really just Nirguna Brahman or Parabrahman
Exactly, nirguna Brahman ( the absolute)is prior to awareness (Brahman with attributes). The unmanifest is prior to manifestation, prior to being.
Nisargatta Maharaj's brings this concept of the absolute and it is prior to the Awareness but there's no such thing as the so called absolute and this absolute is nothing but deep sleep or samadhi and it is an object because it is never remain always present and you're aware of it and therefore you about it and saying about it.
Not knowing yourself is a state or vritti in sanskrit and it is deep sleep which is appear and disappear in Awareness.
So don't try to go beyond the Awareness and you can't.
This is over explained, and over intellectualized. The description has become the veil to understanding
I agree
Blablabla. It is what it is!
@@EinfachNurTyp don't like our opinion, guess what it is what it is
Rupert is always very clear that the explanation gets in the way of truth and that if you want the absolute truth, it’s taught through sitting in silence.
As a teacher he recognises the need to satisfy the intellectual investigation to support surrender to the truth.
In my mind, he is one of the greatest teachers.
@@RobBegg I used to think so also, but lately I find his talks convoluted with a tendency to enhance confusion, and not get to the root.
Before I was there was no other
🕉🕉🕉
❤❤❤
Yes but not that.
To end the war you have to understand the atheist logical fallacy. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To understand you have to read until the end or until you understand. To understand Spinoza's God is the true God and you have been deceived you have to understand from nothing can not be created something. Thank you.
The vaccum from which awareness came.
🤙NAMASTE🤙
The real flaw is Rupert and these people don't live in community and so it is all theoretical chatter rather that living and being.
Yup A bored, evil creator....
Please be a little more loud
Thank you ❤